Bruce Jenner takes off his cross- and hands it to his children

The whole world has turned their attention to Bruce Jenner, whose transition has been the number one trending story for two days. Big Media, cultural elites, and even the White House are falling all over themselves to swoon over Mister Bruce Jenner and his “transition” to womanhood. Some of the adjectives bandied about describing his coming out include “Brave” and “Courageous.” But all I see is a man lifting a life-long burden from his shoulders and placing it squarely (pun intended) on his children.

“Oh no no no!” you say?

Because you’ve seen nothing but support from his family, right? Except that his youngest daughter was “humiliated” by Jenner’s plans and couldn’t bring herself to see him after his breast implant surgery. And some of his children refuse to be involved in the reality TV series documenting his “transition”. And one daughter left the room in tears because she was “simply overwhelmed” when Bruce announced his desire to become a woman.

Overwhelmed with joy, of course. Right?

If all the applause is leading you to believe that perhaps kids really are better off when their parents take measures to transform into a member of the opposite sex, here’s a few off-camera reactions from kids who have learned that the mother or father that they have always known will be transitioning into extinction:

“…I want to die. I want to curl in a ball. I want to scream, but right now I feel just so numb. I feel like a zombie. I feel more alone than I’ve ever felt in my whole life…” From my journal on September 6th, 2010 – The morning after I found out. http://mydadjill.blogspot.co.uk/

Make no mistake, Bruce Jenner has struggled in his life and he deserves our compassion and our prayers. Many transgendered individuals suffer from co-morbidity, that is, multiple underlying social and emotional problems. Sometimes with therapy, as in this case of a transgender woman with dissociative disorder, treating the underlying disorder alleviates the feeling of being a woman trapped in a man’s body. But while Bruce has struggled, perusing a new identity is not “brave.” The brave ones are those who do the hard work of dealing with their mental illness, working through it, overcoming their broken past, and restoring their minds to health. That’s hard. And heroic. But instead of toiling to discover and treat his psychosis, Bruce will now build his life and identity around the symptoms of his illness.

In short, he will stop struggling. And his kid’s struggle will begin. The burden isn’t gone, it’s just been transferred. In these cases, the children now have to deal with the problem, not the adult. As with divorce, abortion, third party conception, single-parent by choice, and same-sex parenting, a “transitioning” parent exemplifies the popular refrain of this millennia: kids sacrifice so that adults can follow their desires.

But wait, there’s more. Not only will the kids have to deal with the shock and trauma of losing the parent they have always known. Some kids will actually be saddled with the very thing that their transgender parent is seeking to escape- gender confusion.

I’m not aware of any studies which measure outcomes for children with transgender parents, indeed finding such a miniscule population in a random sample would be extremely difficult. But I imagine they will face similar struggles to children who have gay or lesbian parents. In that regard, several studies have found that children with gay parents are more likely to suffer gender confusion, engage in homosexual behavior and have same-sex relationships. A quick browse of the COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays) blog will give you several snapshots of kids with gay/trans parents who identify as gay or trans themselves- such as here, here and here. But if you want to check out the studies for yourself, see this, this ,this and this.

The small bit of research that exists suggests increased rates of same-sex orientation among the children of such couples; my informal synthesis would be that gay parenting approximately triples or quadruples the rate of same-sex attraction. It may be technically true that “the vast majority of these children eventually grow up to be heterosexual,” but only because if being raised by same-sex parents increases the occurrence of same-sex attraction from 2 percent to 8 percent, 92 percent are still heterosexual. But a fourfold increase is still a sizable effect statistically.

I had availed myself to these studies and synopsis when I first started blogging, but personally I only knew a handful of other kids with gay parents. Now, a couple of years into my odyssey, I receive emails and listen to the stories of many other children who have gay/transgender parents and I have discovered that I may be the anomaly because I didn’t struggle with my gender or sexual identity. A large percentage of kids with LGBT parents have at least experimented with same-sex relationships. Many have rejected their bodies entirely. I’ve compiled a few for you, and these are just the ones who are willing to put their struggles in print.

Thomas, now Tammy: The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three – because of a speech impediment – was, ‘I am a girl’… At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning.

VJ: My half-brother thought our mothers were men. He would constantly call them his daddies and would ask them for our ‘real mother’. Our moms thought this behavior was cute, and often encouraged his confusion… Right now he thinks he’s a transvestite and is taking hormones to make the transformation.

Denise Shick: I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my (trans) father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father…It is not fair or healthy for a daughter to feel guilty about her developing body, or about becoming a woman.

Robert Lopez: I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers… When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet… I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there…

So while the world falls all over itself, cheering Mr. Jenner on for his courageous trailblazing, take a moment to consider what following a parent down that trail looks like. Real courage is the fortitude to self-sacrifice in order to protect the emotional health and safety of those who are dependent on you. “Bearing your cross” for the sake of others, so to speak. It’s what adults, and especially parents, are supposed to do. But that is not the road that Bruce Jenner has chosen. Instead of protecting and sacrificing for his family he has embarked on a journey which compels his children to carry his emotional baggage.

He is relieved of his burden, it seems. But the weight on his children has only grown heavier.

And, if you eat beef hamburger while maintaining that you are a vegetarian, doesn’t make it so. Read your Catechism (not Pelosi’s ‘abridged’ version), Victor!

Well, it should be interesting to see how the lobby sells trans marriages and parents.

And, don’t be silly, why in the world would anyone think that age of consent, polyamory, and the host of other minority sexual practices (aka disorders) are on the lobby menu?

Silly slippery slopes- why they are as much a figment of your wild imagination as is your silly desert sky god and his tome.

Meanwhile, I’ll go start my ‘scientific studies’ search [to appease the lobby] for all those perfect trans models in nature. Because, you know, it is so good for it, and us all- especially our children.

Then, I’ll swing my head out the window for a few minutes to enjoy the big yellow sky and herd of unicorns that regularly browse my silver and blue hay pastures here in my very own Utopia. Oh, look at that, one of them has a rainbow horn!

What’s so wrong with the children of gays being gay themselves? Perhaps the true level of homosexuality in humans is closer to 10% as Kinsey states and having gay parents allows children to recognize this in themselves instead of remaining in the closet if they had straight parents

There is nothing inherently “bad” in the children of gays being gay but in my experience having been raised in a same sex home and community gay parents have an unhealthy, extreme and abnormal preoccupation with their children’s sexuality. And they are overly involved in a sexual preoccupation with their kids. They want their kids to be gay. It is an achievement to have gay kids and they pressure kids. Many pretend to be gay to curry the parents favor and the other adults around them. You think that’s okay? Yep one sick culture. Tell me did your straight parents push you to have hetero sex with as a teenager? Did they brag to all their friends when you had heterosexual sex? Porn–did they push porn? Did they take you to those special straight bars? I am betting that is no. You’re crying about the closet–forgive the kids of gays if they can’t muster up too much pity. Yes let’s keep pretended they are just great parents.

Sounds to me like if someone has an extreme, unhealthy, abnormal preoccupation with children’s sexuality it’s the guy who writes a comment like that. You don’t know any gay parents, none of them are “obsessed with their children’s sexuality” any more than straight ones. You honestly think straight parents don’t obsess over who their child is attracted to? Why do you think straight fathers have such a problem when their son comes out as gay? Why do you think so many LGBT youth are forced to the streets, even in the year 2015?

You’re sick. The aspersions you cast have no basis in rational thought and are based completely and totally off the paranoid delusions of anti-gay sites. Are you Peter LaBarbera? Seriously, your posts look like they come directly from AFTAH. Full of paranoia and insults and no factual basis.

Of course my father took me to a straight bar, Jesus are you insane? Do you think fathers don’t take their sons to strip clubs any more? You honestly think the gay community is the only one that would do something like that? You’re delusional.

You keep pretending that sexual orientation has any effect on a person’s ability to raise a child you no good bigot

Did you not get the one really important fact? I had gay parents and they most certainly were obsessed with their own sexuality and their children’s sexuality and this starts at age three. I grew up in the gay community with all the obsession and distortion and sickness. They were invasive and controlling and crossed every normal boundary. Horrible parents, by any other standards outside the gay community–sick, self centered, manipulative, narrow minded and abusive. And that is them on their best behavior. Oh and plenty of gay parents throw their kids out and plenty of their kids attempt suicide and commit suicide. Big Gay just keeps that all very hush hush. As I have suggested there is only so long before it comes out. Calling me a bigot means nothing it like white noise. Rational is not an issue. Experience is the issue and you can’t argue with lived experience. Having grown up with gay parents in the gay community the one thing I can say with no hesitation is that growing up with them is a form a child abuse. And funny that I am not only one saying they should not be given children. Do you honestly think after gay marriage passed that people will ignore what the kids have to say or perhaps they may listen. And how is Big Gay going to silence all of us? You do realize the last year has been in explosion in kids bravery coming forward. Despite the risks, the threats against them, the harassment . You think it is normal to threaten, harass, and try to bully people into silence when they speak about their lived experience–well they gay community does because they are sick and abusive. People are seeing what they do to their own children and then claim they are “just like” . Catch a clue–child abuse is not normal. Threatening victims to silence them–not normal. Having massive campaigns to intimidate–not normal. And obsessed with children’s sexuality–not normal. But you go ahead and keep proving my point.

And your parents were not representative of the norm, and you should really get that into your head or else you’ll simply have an irrational hatred of homosexuals for the rest of your life. Being obsessed with your child’s sexuality is hardly restricted to or over-emphasized in the gay community. Your parents sound like sick people, and as evidenced by your opinions and the manner in which you debate they failed miserably in raising a well-developed child, but that is hardly the fault of their sexuality. I know more than a few gay parents who are perfectly fine, rational people who would never pressure their child into any sexual orientation or relationship.

I have never heard of gay parents throwing out their children for being straight. That sounds like utter lunacy and something you made up off the top of your head.

“Big Gay” doesn’t exist. If these stories existed then people like Peter LaBarbera (who I still think is you in disguise) or Robert Oscar Lopez would seize upon them and hold them up as representative of the entire community, the same way that you idiots act like the nudists and BDSM fetishists at the Folsom Street Fair are representative of all homosexuals everywhere.

You are a bigot. That is simply stating a fact. I do not believe that you had gay parents, but even if you did these people were hardly representative of the community as a whole, especially considering the timeframe involved since there were no gay parenting communities 40 years ago (I’m assuming you’re over the age of 50 based on your social views). You need to prove these things with studies and with facts and with evidence, not conjecture, but you cannot. Any and all studies that look into the parenting abilities of homosexual parents find that their children are perfectly well-adjusted and happy, yet you choose to focus on outliers and people like Katy who have political or religious motivations for being against gay parenting instead.

An explosion in kids coming forward? You mean the four articles posted on Conservative blogs? All of whom paid off significantly by the Witherspoon Institute (where’s your check Katy?). Please point me to this explosion of children of gay parents because all I’ve seen are individual articles written on conjecture by Conservative evangelical Christians. That’s hardly unbiased.

Your insistence that gay parenting is by its very nature child abuse is nothing but unbridled hatred and fear. I’m sorry you hate your parents, but they’re not representative of all gay people just like Andrea Yates and Susan Smith aren’t representative of all Christian mothers.

ZZ you are a foolishly flaying a bunch of practices lies. There were quite a few communities well before my time in fact since the 1950s. I would suggest that you not enter the realm of LGBT history with me because I was raised in that sickness and would wipe the floor with you rag of ignorance. Bigot–do you honestly think I care–calling me a bigot gee wiz–I survived the sickest community to rise up in the west since the Nazis I did not do so by getting cowed by being called names. That is the beauty of COGs. We are kinda your worst nightmare because the standard manipulations do not work.

Now you can say I have limited experience but I can speak to the behavior of many many many adults in that community and what I say is not refutable. And we have “family pictures” oh boy they will fun to share. And too bad for LGBT we are growing in numbers and not going to be quiet. And you know what, sooner or later the truth will out. It always does. And I will not feel badly for you when it happens. As for the studies–they were lies. You have noticed that things are starting to come out–just wait more to follow. Now who is going to be believed people that lived it or you? GLAAD and the HRC will spend fortunes trying to shut us up, threaten and harass and they will fail. You know why? Because it is a movement based in lies and pathological distortions and they can’t keep it together over the long haul. And if in the future the backlash forced you endure one tenth of what the children endure at the hands of these sick adults I will be pleased, very. I think ever gay adult who demands children should be sentenced to endure what they did to all the children. What is coming from the kids in the future is going to make the 1980s ands 1990s look like the good old days–Children will a whole subject that will wish you never addressed.

Kinsey was a sexual deviant and a professional charlatan that allowed infants, toddlers, children and adolescents to be raped so as to make a ‘name’ for himself. His ‘research’ has been thoroughly invalidated.

Taking your position to its logical conclusion, using nature, your nemesis, as a foundation, more homosexuals- which if practiced faithfully, is sterile, is good for humans as a species and their society exactly how?

He gathered data you idiot, his research on pedophiles was done after the fact, he had no knowledge of ongoing pedophilia and he did not “allow children to be raped.” This same nonsense has been utilized by the Religious Right (whose arguments you seem to mimic almost exactly despite your tendency to call yourself non-religious and non-political) for decades now to discredit Kinsey. He had no sexual contact with children and at no point in his research did he “allow” them to be raped.

His research has not been invalidated. Certainly there are certain aspects that have been refuted and rebuffed through further study, but the man’s entire life work was not magically invalidated simply because you chose to believe some lie you read on some Right Wing site.

Homosexuals adopt children at higher rates than the rest of the population. That alone is more than enough to justify their worth in this society.

They will not be adopting for much longer because so many of the kids are starting to speak out. And surrogacy is increasingly being exposed for what it is reproductive slavery and human trafficking–neither are parenting.

Is it all just a political agenda, which is why you so easily dismiss any of the truths found in nature, and why you become so toxic when faced with these truths?

Eliminating all scientific studies, either side of the debate, and basing any conclusions only on observations of nature (not nature manipulated by man, as found on farms and in zoos) and using the simplest logic – what exactly is good for humans and their society regarding promotion of the LGBTQ agenda? Hint: Citing adoption of children since that ill is based in another human failing caused by a previous distortion of a successful human social model (eg. caused by no-fault divorce), and given the concerns of raising children in SS households: neither response is sufficient to support your claim of benefit to human flourishing.

Personally, I really could care less if gays ‘married’, so long as it didn’t involve a redefinition of natural, authentic marriage, or trans amputate their heads to achieve their disordered goals. So long as humanity itself wasn’t under threat of being altered to accommodate these disorders, it actually wasn’t my business. But, your lobby made it all of our business when you set out to purposefully deconstruct authentic marriage for the sole purpose of collapsing the social structure of western civilization – which is a political/ideological goal. And, the majority of your lobby strive do just this very thing for political gains (maybe you are just a duped participant?). Since your politics is thoroughly toxic to a thriving humanity, you then became interlopers to the prevailing culture still operating within natural norms.

So, as interlopers you will be received.

This, by the way, in case you are so entrenched in the insanity of the ‘progressive’ lobby that you are unfamiliar with it, is logic. Nature is logical. And Man is logical only when his behavior mirrors the norms found in nature.

That is a truth that neither you nor your lobby can deny. That is the truth that cannot be distorted. That is the truth for which you have no logical response. And that is the truth that you keep trying to contort into some sort of religious position in order that you can then disparage it as ‘some old guy in the sky’s desert tome’. But, we all can see here at ATB that you ( and your lobby) don’t have any rational response to the truth about nature dictating norms.

And, for this ‘revelation’ (for the LGBTQ lobby, at least), we’ll need to be ever-so tolerant of the intolerant lobby’s vicious attacks – no doubt.

You make some really great points here. I’m glad you aren’t put off by the slander. I hope more gay children have the courage to speak out. You know more than most of society but that will change soon.

You may think, that while acting out all your queer contortions, that you are somehow going to browbeat the opposition into submission with nasty labels since that is pretty much the only way your side has gotten its way so far, but, what you mostly manage to do is reveal your own incredible immaturity, intolerance, and ignorance. Keep at it, good work, there.

I am incapable of being bullied, so, stop wasting all of our time here.

Kinsey’s research is only cited by those (even those currently not embraced by the LGBTQ community, such as those that find that data useful to support their current mental illnesses like your NAMBLA gang only recently disengaged from your community for political gains) that need it to attempt to defend and promote their disorder. Kinsey is thoroughly discredited in the scientific community because his data were derived not only via unethical means, but the data itself were totally manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. No ethical or unbiased clinician will cite Kinsey’s work. And, those that have attempted to duplicate his work without similarly skewing the data, repeatedly fail to confirm his conclusions. Ever wonder why only Kinsey’s work and not any subsequent work can be cited? There is no more debate there than is about the color of the sky in everyone else’s world, but yours, apparently.

I’ve never questioned anyone’s worth in society (do you see the irony in that you criticize all of your oppositions’ intellectual capabilities while repeatedly displaying an inability to comprehend simple sentences), but I’ve summarized facts about the usefulness of disassembling human social structures just to humor a mentally/emotionally unfit segment of our population. The genetic worth of homosexuals rather stands on its own- doesn’t it? Or, will you attempt to dispute that fact, too?

For other Trans surgery proponents (please do try to respond without collapsing into juvenile name-calling): There’s a surgeon in UK agreeing to perform surgery on a male that can only be sexually aroused by amputated limbs. Now, this male wants his own perfectly healthy legs amputated (I guess he exhausted all other willing amputees?). Following the logic that this is his own business and we need to mind our own, and that no one else gets hurt but this person – should he be permitted to have this surgery? If not, why not?

Hi Don. Thanks for the comment. Gender confusion/dysphoria/identity disorder is exactly that, a medical disorder. And it was likely saddled upon him by a broken childhood. We don’t get to choose how we feel, but we choose what we do with our feelings. As a society, we would do well to recognize this mis-orientation for what it is- a coping mechanism for trauma and seek the treat the heart of the issue. Here’s some factors that typically feed into gender dysphoria:

• An unstable unsafe home environment, real or perceived
• Separation from a parent by death or other events
• Serious illness among the family or child
• Domestic violence in the home
• Neglect, perceived or real
• Sexual, physical, or verbal abuse
• A strong opposition disorder from social norms
None of the above contributing factors are “chosen”. He didn’t choose to “feel” like a woman. But Jenner is choosing to mutilate himself and numb his pain with hormones and plastic surgery. He is culpable for those choices. So the right response is to be merciful to the individual as he struggles to align his mind with his body, but also encourage that individual toward right action. We don’t do him, his children, or others struggling with this condition any favors by lauding his decision to transition.

…but if something is developmental (as in, beyond the control of the individual), how should that be treated? I’m a determinist, so I don’t see Mr. Jenner has a choice. In that sense, neither do you or I. The tools we have allow us to be the people who we are. No more, no less. I don’t see you being a croupier on a cruise ship; I don’t see myself bartending (no offence to anyone who’s part of either of those professions!)- but that’s just because we are who we are. Some things are at our reach, others aren’t.

Hi friend. If we are just talking about Mr. Jenner, if he lived in a vacuum where everything he did effected only himself, then I (as well as most Americans I think) would disagree, shrug, and say “live and let live.” I think that his choices are deeply problematic for him as in individual, as surgery doesn’t solve the underlying issues and many people who undergo sex reassignment continued to be highly troubled: http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120 But they would belong to only him.

The problem is that this is being promoted, hailed, and glamorized, when the truth is that it wrecks havoc on not only the individual himself, but on families and especially children. Thankfully Jenner’s children are adults, or near adulthood so the more formative years are over. But I think it’s telling that the youngest daughter could not bring herself to see her surgically-altered father. I’m sure that this will encourage other struggling parents to accept “who they are” rather than dig down and really look at what’s causing the distress. And in turn, their children will be distressed.

I still don’t see how you get to it being a choice. How different of a person do you think you’re capable of being?
Every single experience you’ve had in your life is part of a mathematical equation, and the result is who you are at this exact moment.
We like to think we’re totally in control of these things, but we’re not.

Hi Jason. Welcome to asktheBigot. Curious as to how you feel I am attacking Jenner. Is there a way I can highlight the negative fall-out for children of transgender individuals in a way that doesn’t constitute an attack in your mind? What would that look like? Thanks for the comments.

Thanks so much Susan. I may have tired to cram a bit too much into this post, but I am always amazed that the extent to which we affirm the sexual desires/decisions of adults often to the detriment of kids. This is only the most recent example.

According to Mr Heyers, he was given ” a treatment for a disorder [gender identity disorder] I didn’t have. I wasn’t a man trapped in a woman’s body. I was an alcoholic with dissociative disorder.”
(From his autobiography, Trading My Sorrows, p118.)

Since then, he’s found it more lucrative to claim that he was “healed from transsexuality by the power of Jesus Christ”, and that there are hundreds of thousands of cases of transsexual regret like him, all too afraid to speak out.

Usually I like your inputs but in this you seem to be coming across a little transphobic, especially with putting quotation marks around the words ‘transformation’ as if implying that isn’t what he doing. Its very belittling and insulting. I usually don’t ‘keep up with the Kardashians’ but I do understand from what others have told me that Bruce was a step-dad, and wasn’t even the girls biological father. From what the young ladies told the rest of the world they seem comfortable with their dad’s transformation. I would see the argument in undergoing the surgery and hormonal therapy when the girls are young and need a father in the house to look up to, but from what it appears they’ll all grown (or nearly grown) and are getting along with their own life.

It isn’t fair for Bruce to continue living unhappy with himself, and though children come first in situations like divorce or even same-sex parenting, how long do you expect the parents to be living their lives for their children? Shouldn’t the kids as adults, and in response to the gratitude they have for their caregivers, finally be their for their parents in THEIR time of need?

As I wrote before, its just… this type of attitude towards the LGTB community is really going to hurt you when you want to get your opinion across about same-sex parenting and gay marriage. Though you say you’re different, and maybe you are indeed different, its going to come across that your opposition comes from a place of religion and prejudice.

I put transformation in quotes because there is NO WAY for Jenner to “transform” into a woman. If anyone were to take a blood sample, or bone sample or if archeologists were to unearth his body in 2000 years and test the remains they would determine that Jenner is MALE. Because surgery and hormones and how you feel doesn’t determine your sex. It’s built into the very smallest components of our humanity. It’s not just a matter of our genitalia (btw Jenner still has his male parts if I understand correctly so even superficially he’s a surgically-augmented man) but it is reflected in brain function, ocular differences, size of internal organs, thickness of skin, sensitivity to sound, etc. Jenner will never be a woman. Surgery and hormones will never change that. And the incongruence between mind and body tends to cause distress, to the point where post-surgery transgender individual commit suicide at 20X the rate of the general public. He needs HELP, not congratulations for self-mutilation.

Also, I know that VJ’s parents aren’t trans. I was saying that kids of trans parents will likely fare similarly to kids with gay/lesbian parents. Kids with trans/gay parents are more likely to identify as trans/gay. I actually think that the “four fold” increase that Stanton Jones speak of may be an under estimate. Literally, of those who have been willing to share their story with me, almost every one experimented with same-sex relationships.

That is no religious argument. Though my Christianity causes me to be deeply concerned for this man, my argument stems from raw data and undisputed biological fact.

Question for you: what do you mean by “transphobic?” Honestly, I’d love to hear what you mean by that.

There has been past civilizations that honored transgenders as the third gender. It would be very respectful if you embraced a similar approach. If someone asked me if Bruce had become biologically female, I would say “no”, however I would still address him by whatever gender suited his preference. If “she” and “her” is what he (? I don’t know if he considers himself a woman yet) wants, I do it because it makes him happy.

Most of the issues with the trans* community has to do with prejudices from the outside world. I’m not saying that there are internal struggles and inadequacies, I’m sure there are, but a lot of their issues are because people don’t respect them for the gender they are, resulting to doctors rejecting them, jobs rejecting them, partners rejecting them, and even gay people rejecting them. They have no one. And then, no offense, but there are people like you, who scoff at their transition and say they can never be male or female. Do you think that makes them feel good, whether you’re right or wrong?

Black transwomen are some of the most discriminated groups out there. In fact they’re targeted by police more than gays and black men, and get the worse treatment in prison facilities.

Respecting their transition, and the gender they want to live by, is the first step. If there is still a high suicide and depression rate in the community afterwards then we can address the problem thereafter.

If this was a post about how biologically it’s impossible to change sex, but we should always respect people by the gender they choose to live by, then ok. That wasn’t this post at all.

The behavior and the reaction displayed in the commenting section and the blog post itself is what people expect out of conservatives and it’s the reason why you all aren’t wining, or gaining any young people’s respect. It amazes me sometimes how you all are blinded by your behavior.

I’m going to speak to this from the perspective of race, because frankly I think the issues of gender and sexuality have become so culturally and emotionally charged that once they enter the conversation people can’t even think straight. (No pun intended.) We have a daughter who was adopted. She is Asian. We are Caucasian. In many ways, it would make sense for her to grow up feeling as though she were (or should have been) “white”. Her entire family is white, as are many of her friends. If she came to us and said, “I’m not Asian, I’m white,” what would a truly loving response to that statement look like? And bear in mind that, objectively speaking, race is a whole lot less significant – biologically, anthropologically and developmentally – than gender. Race is completely and totally a social construct. It has no objective meaning whatsoever – only the subjective meaning given it by individuals and societies. We could allow our daughter to reconstruct her face, alter her skin tone, and dye her hair without interfering with any of her normal bodily functions or damaging her physical health. Yet we seem to understand on some basic level that one cannot – and should not aspire to, if one is psychologically healthy – change one’s race. One’s body IS oneself. That is the point. The point is not whether this statement makes someone feel good. The point is, what is real? What is authentic? What is healthy? What leads to wholeness and true freedom? And the answer is not to distort or mutilate a healthy body in order to try and make peace with a dissatisfied mind.

That is NOT to say that people who experience transgender thoughts/feelings are insane. They are not. Neither is the person who is depressed despite having an objectively satisfactory life. The mind is very complex – and it is often dead wrong. To say that someone is mentally ill is not an insult. If one feels it is an insult, then I would have to ask why that person holds those who experience mental illness in such low esteem. Why the bigotry? I struggled with depression after my first child was born. Was the solution to place my child for adoption, since that seemed to be the source of my distress? Of course not. There was nothing wrong with my child. There was something very wrong with my perception of how my life had changed in becoming a mother. Obviously that isn’t a perfect example, so don’t browbeat me with nitpicky objections. My point is that there are myriad mental health struggles that can cause a person’s perception of reality to be skewed, without rendering that person insane. Google “body integrity identity disorder” and “body dysmorphic disorder”. Think about disorders like anorexia, in which sufferers die of starvation – all the while believing they are overweight. Do you know this particular form of self-destruction is promoted as a lifestyle by some, who refuse to acknowledge it as a disease?

We don’t show love by reinforcing someone’s skewed perception of reality. We show love by speaking the truth. I agree it should be spoken with compassion. I think the frustration being expressed in this and other posts critical of Jenner’s transition is with the unquestioning adulation and effusive praise being directed toward Jenner – not so much with Jenner as a person. The fact is, people in his life are hurt by this and most of the world doesn’t seem to care. I believe his youngest biological daughter is 17. Imagine at 17 your dad now has womanly breasts, a feminized face, and appears on the cover of a popular magazine wearing women’s underclothes. I agree it is better than if his youngest child was, say, 5. But really? At 17 that’s still a huge blow. It remains to be seen whether Jenner is truly content in the years to come. The tragedy of it is, if not, then what? No wonder the suicide rate is so high among those who have had sex reassignment surgery. Where does one go from having mutilated your (Olympic-gold-medal-winning) body beyond repair? Hopefully Jenner won’t go that far. We should be discouraging people (especially young people) from doing so – even if hearing that message doesn’t make them feel especially happy.

“To say that someone is mentally ill is not an insult.” <— I'm done. Mrs. Faust, honestly, its getting harder and harder to be a supporter. I respected your opinion as a child who grew up with lesbian parents, and I honestly believed your views about traditional marriage was coming from a place of feeling your needs weren't being met by your moms, but it just feels right now that its just out of hostility towards the queer community.

If you think that transgenders and gay people are mentally ill, your opinion as well as this user's will not be respected. I'm not telling you this as hateful liberal, I'm telling you this as someone who is warning you and doesn't want to see your face across CNN as "Conservative Christian child of divorce, doesn't think her mothers deserve marriage equality, and thinks transsexuals are mentally ill." Do you want that image?

Your movement, the traditional marriage movement, and the children's right movement is going to crash and burn unless you learn how to be less hostile and prejudice towards the LGTB community, and learn to be accepting and inclusive. No, not patronize them by telling them to keep in their sexual desires and be in a miserable marriage with a woman they don't love, not tell them sweetly that they're delusional and mentally ill and need help, but ACCEPT them, and try to help them fit into the equation.

Maybe making a transition while the children are young is a bad idea, but what about transsexuals who adopt children at infancy, and who's children only know them after they've completely transformed?

I would like to speak out about the horrors of ART, and even the challenges of abortion, but do you really want to know what my fear is right now? Being associated with people who think transsexuals are mentally ill and who think that gay people don't deserve the right to marry. Seriously, that's my fear.

Again, no middle ground. Its thrown me in a loop, and really makes me question who's side should I be on.

I’m sorry if the idea of transgenderism as a mental illness is so offensive. If transgenderism is not a mental disorder, then it should be promptly removed from the ICD and no Medicaid or insurance reimbursement should be provided for its treatment.

Interesting that out of “this user’s” entire post, that is the sentence that would throw you for such a loop. Proving, I think, my point about the persistent social stigma regarding mental illness (even among those who consider themselves so very compassionate and open-minded), as well as the assertion in my very first sentence that we simply cannot think – or talk – straight anymore when it comes to matters of gender and sexuality.

It is never my intention to cause harm or distress.
I won’t pretend to know all the answers – but I feel I asked honest questions and raised fair points, without calling anyone names, questioning anyone’s worth, or attacking anyone’s character. I think that’s what used to be called a discussion. Peace.

I’ve avoided this contempt-thinly-disguised-as-concern blog for so long, but I had to stop by because I was wondering how long it would take Bigot to do the whole criticize the sin (mental illness in this case?), not the sinner thing with Caitlyn. And indirectly shame her for not hiding and being depressed anymore. Better to bear the burden… It’s for the children! I was waiting for her to fret about the children, because no child can be OK with it if she isn’t. As if she would take a live and let live approach if she didn’t have kids. Centering it around the kids just helps to make it seem like a caring response. And how dare we support someone who finally feels a little free, whose walk is finally a little easier? Who works through their shame? Because if the initial reaction of the child isn’t totally positive, it must be bad and have nothing to do with views espoused by most of these commenters. I wonder what she’d have intersex people do, since she’s so willing to criticize how other people handle their struggles. (She has to even if she doesn’t want to because she is called to.) And with that, I’ll bow out until I need to torture myself by seeing how she so warmly yet shamingly responds to the next thing.

Trans uses kids as a cove shamelessly to seem unthreatening–they use their deaths a pack of grim reapers so it is curious to come and accuse the Bigot. Transgender is more male entitlement for sexual pleasure–nothing new here. People are free to support Mr. Jenner. And they are also free to critique male behaviors that damage women and children. Faulty manipulative analogy do not help you prove that a man is a women. He is not intersex and that’s a just a attempt to deflect and an attempt to hijack legitimacy. You do the North American Intersex Associated has issued a statement that states they are NOT “Transgender” and have a biological condition not a psycho sexual compulsion–drop in as a pregnant women with a genetic condition and pick up the pamphlet that genetic counselors give out. And educate yourself.

Mr. Jenner is as free as another 65 five year old white male is to feel free and wear dresses . He is not free to expect anyone to not see him as other than sad sack parody soaked in misogyny and porn imagery. There’s not much worthy of respect. Although it inadvertent points up the male misogynistic and is thus perhaps worthy of contempt from women. Public consensus seems to suggest that the best thing about Jenner is he screams what women have been saying about Transgender. Thus, quickly and efficiently confirms for millions the narcissistic male delusion. He saved feminist and children rights people thousands of words. You know what they say about pictures

Hi Thinker. Waaaaaay too long no see. I hope all is well with you, man and pooch.

Always good to have your comments here. Curious as to how you feel I could voice the grieving kids often go through when their parents comes out (in this case) as trans, highlight the often-underlying causes of gender dysphoria, and talk about the sexual confusion of children with LGBT parents without “shaming.” Or is anything short of praising one’s choice to use hormones/surgery to alter their perfectly functional body considered “shaming” in your book?

Candygurl,
A bulimic person believes they are fat even though they could be close to malnutrition and death. We don’t encourage them to continue to harm themselves based on their delusional body image just so they can “be happy”.

Why should we encourage a man to remove perfectly healthy organs based on his delusion that he “thinks” he is a woman, when all physical and genetic evidence shows he is not.

Sexual ideology has robbed a majority of its ability to reason and to come to grips with reality. Don’t join the crowd applauding the emperors new clothes.

“Why should we encourage a man to remove perfectly healthy organs based on his delusion that he “thinks” he is a woman, when all physical and genetic evidence shows he is not.”

Because neurologically his brain develops female, and his body develops male. And the biggest take-home of all, its none of your goddamn business what anyone chooses to do with their own bodies. This isn’t about abortion, with another life involve, this is a man, consenting to cosmetic surgeries and hormonal therapies. That’s his body, his choice. Leave him alone.

Is it ethical for a doctor to participate in the removal of healthy body organs in order to treat a disorder of the mind? Especially given the long-term studies showing a persistent increased risk of suicide? I mean sure, it’s Jenner’s body and his choice whether to have plastic surgery – but if it involves mutilation of healthy body parts and the cessation of normal bodily functions (such as ovulation/menstruation in females), is that medically ethical? The first principle of medicine, of course, being, “Do no harm.”

What about children who report feelings of being transgendered? Is it ethical to start giving them hormones to prevent puberty, when this will stunt their growth, possibly cause future sterility, and surely hasn’t been studied in enough patients to know its true risks? And when studies conducted at two different medical centers have shown that 70-80 percent of prepubescent children who reported transgender feelings spontaneously lost those feelings and developed naturally and normally into an identity corresponding to their biological – what are the ethical implications of using hormones to delay puberty in children who express feelings of being transgendered?

Where is the evidence that a transgendered male’s brain “develops female”, and that this is due to some immutable characteristic? I’m sure you’re aware that one’s behavior shapes one’s brain (it’s called neuroplasticity) as well as the other way around. So there is a bit of a “chicken-or-egg?” dilemma in using brain scans as evidence of an inborn transgenderism that can only be “treated” by altering the healthy body? The brain can be changed through experience. Why not brain therapy?

Under normal circumstances, I would agree that it is none of our business what Jenner has decided to do. Except that it has been made our “business” because it has been plastered on the cover of a popular magazine, praised by prominent entities (up to and including the White House), Jenner will soon star in a reality TV series – and many of us are raising children in the midst of this confused cesspool our culture has become. So yes, when major entities like ESPN and even THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES are praising this medically-assisted capitulation to mental disorder as a form of “courage” – it is our business, and our right, as free citizens to express our dissent.

There is absolutely no evidence that Transgender have female brains. There has been one study with an extremely small sample that says there may be some difference between
In brain structure, but it is statistically insignificant.

Why are we concerned about the bulimic harming their body and not the so called transgender? Both are under delusion.

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite direction

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals

A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.
We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identity.

Zoe Brain is a man who identifies as a women and says he got a woman’s brain from a bee sting. He’s a bit of an self created internet creation but shows to what lengths these men will go to reframe a compulsive fetish. They are relentless and obsessive in seeking attention, sexual pleasure and other peoples compliance in both areas. It seems to be related to needing a audience. There is also a high rate of sexual violence. Here’s some text from a blog about it: https://autogynephiliatruth.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/the-faces-of-autogynephilia/

The last thing these men are are women. The are male in every cell of their body.

“Men with the obsessive & masturbatory paraphilic fantasy to “become women” have autogynephilia. These female impersonators, mostly white guys, come from all walks of life and apart from their sexual fetish and extreme narcissism may not seem to have much in common. However, it has been shown that men with one paraphilia tend also to have other paraphilias — in other words, autogynephiliacs often have other strange sexual kinks. They are usually men who are sexually interested in women, often are married and have young kids, and from a superficial external view seemed mostly like “normal” heterosexual men. Then one day they announce their bizarre obsession to the world, and it’s all downhill from there. Here are some faces of everyday autogynephiles. kosilek

Robert “Michelle” Kosilek killed his wife Cheryl in 1990 and is now doing life in prison. Kosilek tried for many years to get the prison to fulfill his fantasies by providing genital mutilation surgery, but recently “lost the fight” in court. He gets to keep the wig though. andrea-james-after-ffs

James Mead (AKA “Andrea” James) is a notorious tranny activist and an advanced case study in transgender narcissistic rage. Despite having once admitted his autogynephilia, “Andrea” was so embarrassed by J. Michael Bailey’s book that he attacked Bailey’s small children with violent pornographic insults. In addition to popularizing “facial feminization surgery,” this joker is a Wikipedia enthusiast who goes by the name of “Jokestress.” He runs a web site that’s popular among male trannies.

paul-witherspoonChild rapist Paul Witherspoon of Texas.

pritzkerBillionaire autogynephile James “Jennifer” Pritzker, cousin to Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, funds a clinic dedicated to transsexualizing young children who don’t comply with sex role stereotypes. Autogynephiles really push the false idea that “gender identity” is inborn because they think it gives them an alibi against the embarrassing autogynephilic reality.

masbruchRapist and torture-murderer Richard “Sherry” Masbruch.

fallon-fox-MMA-profileBoyd “Fallon Fox” Burton is a violent autogynephilic psychopath who gets his jollies from beating the shit out of women. As a professional “mixed martial artist,” part of Boyd’s fantasy was to be accepted in the league of women martial artists, so he would get to beat up a lot of women. You see, Boyd is a military man, a trained killer, and as a male has certain advantages in terms of strength, reach etc. Nothwithstanding this, Boyd insists that he is actually at a disadvantage! He’s also a crybaby and was full of narcissistic rage at the very true words of a television commentator: “I say if you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You’re a fucking man. That’s a man, OK?”

norsworthyJeffrey Norsworthy, another murderous male tranny maniac doing life in the pen, and trying to get a “sex change operation.”

What else needs to be said, once you know that Robert ludwig“Gabrielle” Ludwig is a 7-foot tall, 50+ year old autogynephiliac who wants to be on the women’s basketball team at the local college?

casebeer

Anthony “Annie Barchetta” Casebeer, ordinary “gal” and men’s rights activist who, like many male trannies of the internet social set, issues death threats to women.

dennis-woolbertConvicted child rapist and well-known male tranny activist Dennis “Allison” Woolbert. It’s trannies like this guy that are the reason sexual predators should not be allowed to change their names.

mccloskeyFamous economist and university professor Donald “Deirdre” McCloskey, another admitted autogynephile and key participant in the ragingly narcissistic attacks on J. Michael Bailey.

ffsThen there’s these guys, who think their fantasy of “facial feminization surgery” will really “confirm” their status as “women.” They are so narcissistic that they even agree to be pictured on the web sites of the millionaire surgeons who have attempted to apply stereotypic “feminine” bone-breaking and other rearrangements to the lantern jaws and Neanderthal brows of these bruisers. Another reason sex predators shouldn’t be able to change their names — some of these fellows look a bit different. I would suggest that the predators be banned from these surgical procedures too.

Just some everyday autogynephiles!

But wait, there’s one more! Devoted Wikipedia editor “Sceptre,” also known as William “Sarah” Noble, whose goal it is to erase all traces of “autogynephilia” from Wikipedia! Because obviously it’s too embarrassing for him it doesn’t exist, right? William goes by “@sarahlicity” on Twitter.

Hello everyone- I worked in a school where a mother forced her daughter to go through numerous medical treatments to satisfy her own mental illness. Drs complied because she was the mother although nothing was wrong with the child. A friend and co-worker’s husband was a med intern and said the disorder is called Munchausen syndrome by proxy and is a form of child abuse. Several of us banded together and stood up for the child and the drs agreed. This sounds similar except Mr Jenner is doing it to his own body. No one is transphobic here. This is a complicated issue and all sides need to be heard.

So you would support those delusional folks who want their legs cut off, as described in comments above? That’s a bizarre and terrible view.

“That’s his body, his choice.”

Fine, and I’m glad you’re using the “correct pronouns.” Bruce Jenner is a classic autogenephile, a transvestite fetishist whose life has spiralled out of control. Enabled by crooked doctors and an obsessive lobby of autogynephiliac activists who have successfully “normalized” this insanity through social engineering and mass media. Instead of being a good father as his 17 year old daughter enters womanhood, Bruce was so horny to “become the woman of his dreams” that he stole the spotlight and left her behind.

Actually, Dr.Blanchard does NOT claim that autogynephilia is mutually exclusive with a diagnosis of transsexualism. Not all people who are, by his theory, autogynephiles are transsexuals, but some are.

A diagnosis is just a diagnosis, a mind game and theoretical structure invented by psychiatry. Who cares what Blanchard recommends. The fact is that we are talking about straight dudes who cultivate life-long dress-up & masturbation fantasies about “being women.” Many years or decades into this folly, with the encouragement of equally-delusional peers on the internet, these men announce that they are actually women, and everyone is henceforth expected to play along with the fantasy, welcome them into the ladies’ restroom, use “proper pronouns,” and so on.

This is your own position which has, despite the use of the term, nothing to do with the theory of the scientist and medical practitioner Dr.Blanchard, though somewhat more to do with the inappropriate sensationalization of the theory by the non-medical, non-scientific Michael Bailey.

The very use of the word “folly” suggests you are starting from a rather narrow moralistic viewpoint, which reinforces gender boundaries at least no less than whatever any “brain essentialist” can come up with. But I don’t deny your right to this analysis; people can have various moral and philosophical views in a free society. What I don’t like is the conflation of medical science and purely moralistic views. It was pioneered in the States by an unholy alliance of Reagan conservatives and the early TERF Janice Raymond in denying medical support for diagnosed transsexuals (a decision recently reversed). And it is continued by appropriation of the medical theory of “autogynephilia” – an imperfect theory that fails to control for cultural bias on several sides at once, but was a necessary part of scientific development – as a slur.

e.g.
Sexual Differentiation of the Human Brain in Relation to Gender-Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Neuropsychiatric Disorders

During the intrauterine period, a testosterone surge in boys masculinizes the fetal brain, whereas the absence of such a surge in girls results in a feminine brain. Since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place much earlier in intrauterine life than sexual differentiation of the human brain, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other. Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality), pedophilia, and the risks for neuropsychiatric disorders are programmed into our brain during early development. There is no proof that postnatal social environment has any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. We discuss the relationships between structural and functional sex differences of various brain areas and the way they change along with changes in the supply of sex hormones on the one hand and sex differences in behavior in health and disease on the other.

Most “brain sex” studies, such as the very shaky work by Zhou (1995) and Kruijver (2000), have been conducted in the brains of a handful of transsexual cadavers. All of these corpses, while alive, had been on feminizing hormones.

Savic and Arver (2011) found the following in their study conducted in living male transgenderists (all erotically attracted to females), who had never been on hormones:

“‘Contrary to the primary hypothesis, no sex-atypical features with signs of ‘feminization’ were detected in the transsexual group. . . . The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR [male transgenderists] are feminized. The observed changes in MtF-TR bring attention to the networks inferred in processing of body perception.”

In their study in living male transgenderists (all erotically attracted to males) who had never been on hormones, Zubiaurre-Elorza and colleagues (2013) later reported:

“In the present report, we studied MtF transsexuals erotically attracted to males that show a feminization of CTh but not in the putamen. Moreover, these findings on the CTh show the same tendency as those reported by Savic and Arver (2011) with respect to the cortical volume of MtFs erotically attracted to females.”

Savic and Arver (2011) had noted enlarged cortical volume, but in view of their findings of deficiencies in networks involved with “own-body” perception, had speculated:

“[T]the enlargement of the GM volume in the insular and inferior frontal cortex and the superior temporal-angular gyrus could derive from a constant rumination about the own body. Brain tissue enlargement has been detected in response to training, and GM enlargement of the insular cortex has been reported in response to meditation, which involves mental focusing on the own body (Holzel et al. 2008; Luders, Toga, et al. 2009; Vestergaard-Poulsen et al. 2009).”

In his skeptical review (published just before the 2011 paper by Savic & Arver) of the notion that brain differences seemingly observed in transgenderists may constitute an “intersex” condition, Meyer-Bahlburg (2011) points out that “[f]indings in GID [gender identity disorder] patients of atypical androgen levels apply only to about one-third of female-to-male transsexuals, and not at all to male-to-female transsexuals. . . . Sex steroid-related findings of genetic polymorphisms are weak, inconsistent, and largely unreplicated. . . . Neuroanatomic findings are few and unreplicated; distributions for GID patients overlap with those of controls and are therefore of questionable utility for GID diagnosis.”

Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism. by Luders et al Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):904-7.
We analyzed MRI data of 24 male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals not yet treated with cross-sex hormones in order to determine whether gray matter volumes in MTF transsexuals more closely resemble people who share their biological sex (30 control men), or people who share their gender identity (30 control women). Results revealed that regional gray matter variation in MTF transsexuals is more similar to the pattern found in men than in women. However, MTF transsexuals show a significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which supports the assumption that brain anatomy plays a role in gender identity.

It’s not as simple as “boy brain vs girl brain”, and we know that MtF and FtM are not exact mirror images.

Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality Govier et al International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010
This study investigated the functional brain organization of 68 male-to-female (MtF) transwomen and 26 female-to-male (FtM) transmen by comparing their performance with 36 typical male and 28 typical female controls on two indicators of cerebral lateralization: dichotic listening and handedness. A sex-differentiating dichotic test and a handedness questionnaire were administered. It was hypothesized that the MtF participants’ dichotic performance would be significantly different from the control males and resemble the control female pattern. This hypothesis was supported. It was also hypothesized that the FtM dichotic pattern would be significantly different from the control females and would resemble the control male pattern. This hypothesis was not supported. Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be significantly more nonexclusive right-handers in both trans-groups. This hypothesis was supported. Taken together, the dichotic and handedness data reported here indicate that the MtF and FtM conditions are not mirror images in terms of the verbal-auditory aspects of their brain organization and neurobiology plays an important role, particularly in the development of the male-to-female trans-condition.

Nonetheless, it’s about as accurate – and inaccurate – as saying “the Earth is round” (rather than an oblate spheroid) when arguing with someone who asserts that its flat.

The only attitude being displayed toward the LGBTQ community is one of ‘please, go live out your choices as whatever you want to be (male, female, animal, vegetable, mineral), but, make sure your choices do not adversely affect our society’ – ours, specifically, being built around western civilization, which is built upon the foundation of the male-female nuclear, biological family.

As soon as the LGBTQ community decided to infiltrate, with the purpose of significantly changing the prevailing culture by targeting the uniquely heterosexual institution that is the foundation for that culture, to achieve their own selfish goals, their aggressive actions prompted the SSM oppositions retort.

The only mandate a human being has is to eat, drink, sleep and eliminate- and, if the species is to be preserved, reproduce. Everything else is a choice – regardless of anyone’s chosen sexuality. The spectrum of sexual behavior choices ranges from celibacy to infinity. Are we also supposed to accommodate all the other multitudes of irregular sexual behaviors within our natural and historic social foundational institutions that contribute zilch to a healthy society, too?

Trans behavior matters to others because they will now be capable of participating in the monogamous pair bonding institution historically reserved and naturally evolved for male-female individuals for the intent of reproducing and raising other healthy humans. Those humans comprise the structure that is our society. Society needs to maintain health if it is to survive. Unhealthy individuals are incapable of reproducing healthy individuals or forming healthy societies. This is 1+1, connect the dots – it isn’t hard.

Care of biological offspring for humans is multigenerational, and therefore, typically has encompassed nearly several decades until recently in our species history. Biological parents have a high level of motivation (genetic investment) to preserve all subsequent generations resulting from their offspring. Aside from the unhealthy biological implications of sex confusion, there are also social fallouts that will adversely affect those subsequent generations. We’re a highly social species, we need social structure, preferably a healthy, functioning one, to optimize the success (health) of our species.

And, all this insanity for what? To cater to the incredibly selfish whims of a significantly unhealthy (unfit) minority community biologically incapable of contributing to a healthy gene pool?

Narcissism, which is a highly disordered psychological illness, cannot survive long as a ‘dominant trait’ in any population. The only question for all of us will be how much damage will be done to our culture before nature spits out this bitter pill.

There is nothing phobic about questioning the possible/potential outcomes in, or adverse effects on society regarding any minority community’s radical demands on a society- especially one so successful, and free (try out your demands in Asia, Africa, or the Levant). We would all be remiss in our obligation to protect and preserve our species fitness, and our freedoms, if we didn’t do our due diligence to protect our society/culture.

Perhaps we are not ‘transphobic’, but you are just factphobic or logicphobic.

>>”Perhaps we are not ‘transphobic’, but you are just factphobic or logicphobic.”<>”As soon as the LGBTQ community decided to infiltrate, with the purpose of significantly changing the prevailing culture by targeting the uniquely heterosexual institution that is the foundation for that culture, to achieve their own selfish goals, their aggressive actions prompted the SSM oppositions retort.”<<

Then continue to expect failure in your movement towards children's rights. Continue to expect others to compare you to hate groups, and intolerant anti-progressives. And in the end, just expect total failure. Im serious. Ireland passed the same-sex marriage bill, as many other countries have done already. Next its going to be America and the supreme court. They're not going to listen to some old christian white man babbling about how queer people threaten traditional values, and how they need to be thrown out of society. They're simply not…

Whats sad is that hostile people like you make it very difficult for those of us who are trying to find a middle ground. Whenever we want to speak up about the horrors of surrogacy, sperm/egg donning, and other atrocities of the baby-selling movement, we get immediately associated with things like you.

I am not sure there is a middle ground. It is a distorted and abusive movement and culture. Surrogacy is a horrific by product of the delusion and the narcism which is very much part of the larger culture. While I think many Christians who have not exposure to the culture are not nuanced in their discussion and tend to speak in terms of sin or whatever they are not wrong in recognizing many of the behaviors as bad for children and women. I spent close to 30 years in the gay community and you know what I would not let my kids near them–ever. And Jae I would let babysit. You think people will listen to to someone raised by gay parents in the gay community? I do not care about “traditional values” or “traditional marriage” I care that they do as little damage as possible to other people. They are destructive and abusive. That is not a bigoted or ignorant statement–it is based in facts. I wonder how much longer they will be able to keep a lid on it.

Well, maybe they would listen to someone in the gay community who was born and reared by that community, but you haven’t spoken up, IMHO. Your only inputs have been on the commenting section of this blog, under a blank photo and a fake name. That’s not helpful. How can I know if the community is really as toxic and dangerous as you say it is, when you can’t even tell me about your upbringing, as I’ve asked nicely two blog posts ago? How do I know you’re not fake? Exactly. So while you’re calling the gay community toxic and evil, under a pseudonym, kids of LGTB speak up, marriage bills get passed, ART rights get passed too, your opinion is associated with hate and intollerence. Very helpful.

CG, They will not listen. They will send 100s of threats. They will contact employers co-workers and demand people are fired. They will try to call us liars until that snaps back in the terrorist faces. Then they threaten our families. They contact and harass relatives trying to get someone to give them information that hope will damage us. They harass and bully and threaten anyone. You can’t know how the community is. They spend millions so that most people don’t. And everyone make a choice on who or what to believe. IMHO it is only a matter of time before what the children of gays are saying are becomes screamingly obvious. I do not care if they get married or go hang bunting. I care about kids. I can’t use my name. Lesson number 1 growing up in the Gay community–you have no identity unless it is in service to them. Anything that sheds light on what they conceal will be met with a campaign to damage and destroy. BTW I do notice that you are not using your own name or picture either. Is that because you feel unsafe? Well imagine that feeling your whole life. Imagine having to move to be safe or having to send a child to a “safe location” because the threats do not stop with us they branch out–yeah great parenting material. You are correct you can’t know. And certainly not everyone is toxic. Some of my “heads up” come from people I still have in the community but you know what? They are scared of the monsters too. I give it a few more years. And all those kids forced to write letters to judges will be testifying in front of sub committees. The center cannot hold because it is really really abusive. Yeah “love makes a family” and a whole lota threats and harassment and terrorism.

Sound like excuses. Have you actually tried speaking up? Mrs. Faust started her blog under a pseudonym, then it developed now she speaks publicly. In fact there are many more who have spoken up, the newest ones being Heather, Brandi and Millie, who are all very young. One of them so young she isn’t even a mother. It hasn’t stopped them.

“But LGTB groups will attack me, they’re so vicious, and cruel” just sound like plain excuses. I’m sorry. But with so many anti-gay conservatives crawling on this blog saying all kinds of disgusting and cruel generalization, and then someone with a fake name and a blank photo claiming that they were raised by gay people and loathe them just as passionately… It just looks really bad… and it rubs you the wrong way, because it feels like blatant lies.

If there were at least ten kids of LGTB people speaking up about what it’s really like and demanding attention, whether gays like it or not, the public would be force to listen. Much of the American public is very in the middle about how they feel about gays. The sitcoms they force on us mean absolutely nothing. I have christian friends who love the gay characters from Modern Family, but still disagree with marriage equality and believe children need moms and dads.

Many people still think gays are perverts and are desperately waiting for the opportunity to validate their beliefs. Their children’s views would be perfect, so it isn’t like your complete audience is going to side with your gay parents (if you have them) and leave you alone. Liberals maybe, but there are plenty of christian groups and conservatives groups who will use your words against your parents and pretend that Zach Whals doesn’t even exist.

It simply looks like you’re fake. I’m sorry. And If you are real, then you’re coming across like a TRUE coward. You know children being sold at the hands of gay people (who you claim are abusive and manipulative), while you hide behind a fake profile picture and only contribute by making snarky remarks. I’m sorry, but how disgusting! We’re in the middle of a huge social crises, with fake gay studies, human exploitation, child trafficking, and children being forced to have no contact with their mothers and fathers, and you hide because you’re afraid of a troll mail???Really?? Omg! And the children who are going to grow up in these abusive situations, with absolutely no support and no means of knowing that their feelings are shared by others, means nothing to you? How selfish.

Your excuses about the backlash of the community are over the top, and if they are true, you can always use it as a means against them to show the world how they intimidate others to force their politics on the media. It’d only make the community look worse, thus proving your case.

If you’re real, I honestly would consider you a coward, and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you’re not real, thank you for proving my point on the extent of conservative hate.

CG,
I speak up, hence the, threats, harassment and bullying. I was not talking in the abstract. I am out there. Ms Faust knows who I am. I would not have 100’s of threats sent to people and organizations I am involved with unless I had dared to speak out. I am well and widely documented. The fact is my parents “gayness” was also well documented in print so when activist associated with GLAAD and the HRC tried to call me a liar their own investigation into me backfired on them. Which does not make me or my family any safer. I absolutely use what they have done and what they continue to do so. Because they can’t control themselves. It just looks so “loving” to threaten in order to try to shut up the kids–I am fine with you thinking I am coward or a liar or a bigot. It may simply be that you can’t imagine anything else—But I am afraid for my family–they are not playing and they have been violent. What LGBT thinks is of no consequence to me because they lie. The point is to have other people see what they are. And if that confirms what Christians thinks so be it. I owe them nothing.

COGs are growing and on the move. It is starting to unravel. They are starting to be caught in the lies— the research—lies. The phony victim narratives as well. They do have media for now. I doubt that will last forever. The COGs are connecting with each other and speaking out and it is a diverse group. I don’t care how I look on a blog. I pick places to leave an impression. Anything someone does not want to hear will sound like a lie. That is the point of propaganda.

The right is losing for a lot of reasons. The main one is that at the higher level they are paid to lose by people like Paul Singer—a conservative who wants gay marriage. The other issue is that they had a poor argument about traditional marriage. So yes they will lose. SSM is only an issue in that it can lead to children and women being harmed. And it will. I happen to think that it will collapse within the next decade. I also think there will be some real tradegies. One thing that is being put out is the idea of reparations for damages done to children and others. LGBT is an elite male movement they have money and if a state forces a child into a home and the child feels they were denied human rights to a mother and father they should be able to demand the state or government pay them damages. Since the courts have been made aware of the issues they can’t claim ignorance.

I saw Millie’s video and she’s great. The comments were standard, a small slice of the pathology. One thing she touches on that needs to come out is the suicidal issues with the kids of gays. You do not have to believe me–believe her. They drive the children they claim to love to suicide. So a lot of unbiased research is needed–but they will allow that and they destroy peoples careers when they try. They have male activists (and it is always men) going after COGs’ jobs and families nasty comments pale in comparison. That’s whole different thing. COGs need to write and document and expose, expose, expose. Zach Wahls is paid well for what he does—he does not get threatened. And he has every right to speak and so do we. But they think they own us. As far as what I or other COGs say about feeding into some larger bigotry–I might have cared once but they have done such abusive things that if they get back what they have done to the kids I would not have sleepless nights. Yes it a huge social crisis and it will get worse before it get better. I know none of this is what you wanted but that’s par for the course.

I was conceived the old fashion way. My biological parents made children (and for the life of me I have no idea why) and had other lives with other partners or 3. The situation is frustrating and that maybe because it is unclear and filled with contradictions and then artificially imbued with a set of false political issues and imperatives. I will set up an email and pass it the Bigot. I assume she knows how to contact you.

Regarding the threats you mention in this thread: have you reported them to the police? They are actionable material for all I know, though you might be well advised to consult a lawyer.

Getting a conviction, even with a very mild sentence, would do wonders for your campaign.

It would also prove to your readers that the threats are real.

To put things in context: I very much agree with candygirl here about a middle ground. I am strongly against surrogacy and, in Ireland, I voted against SSM, but I find your position strongly untenable. You are trying to defend Western civilization by denying Western civilization’s keystone, individual freedom. You call “narcissism” exactly what the US Declaration of Independence calls “pursuit of happiness”. The LGBT movement does often advocate groupthink and many feminists are outright collectivists – but you rbrand of collectivism is no better than theirs.

“Pursuit of happiness” was developed within the context of what the founders believed was Mans most basic needs to thrive- their inalienable rights (not derived from Man). It was never meant to be broken down to an individuals ‘wants’ separated from the needs of the community of society (or species), overall. It is completely dependent upon its predecessor’s principles of Life and Liberty – all within the context of the social battle in the colonies at the time there was monarch rule that ruthlessly oppressed the subject population.

Narcissism is a psychological/emotional disorder found only in Man, that which has nothing to do with Mans inalienable rights.

There is a middle ground: there should be no assault on those social institutions that ensure the health (fitness) of homo sapiens. it doesn’t matter if it the LBGTQ community (who are mostly an ideological lobby), the polyamory, otherkin or Sharia lobby- if it threatens the naturally-evolved human institution of marriage and family, it is not to be tolerated by western civilization. it is a threat over the long term to our civilization, and perhaps to our species, over time.

What can be tolerated, and should be supported (and largely is), is the care and love of these communities outside of permitting them to adversely affect the natural course of Mans evolution. As an analogy, an especially wild or specially gifted child (spectrum encompassing) can be supported without permitting it to totally wreck the family or the neighborhood. That child needs to conform to the natural norms if it is to function well in the prevailing culture or society. Western civilization has been determined to provide the most supportive culture for humans, to date. This highly successful civilization evolved over thousands of years- it was not foisted upon an unwilling or ignorant citizenry. It is based upon the male-female monogamous lifelong and procreative bond, which is the family, that is the foundation for society. That is a fact. It is not an ideology. If you want to change it, you need to explain why, and then explain how that change will benefit all of society, and humanity – not just your tiny community-which also happens to not be naturally long-term bonding or productive from a purely biological perspective.

<2%the human population should not be permitted to redefine our highly successful civilization, or the remaining 98% of humanity. And, nature would certainly not be supportive of such a radical redirection of our society, or our species. Nature is cruel (from our humane/anthropogenic perspective), but it is also highly efficient, and it is never wrong.

The modern human family has in no way evolved as a part of biological evolution. It has changed dramatically while, biologically, the Human remained intact. (BTW, when not talking about the US Founders, I will not participate in your quaint usage of “Man”, conflating a gender with a species. “Human”, plural “humans”, as a noun is a perfectly legitimate word in 21th century English, even if originally introduced in science fiction around half a century ago). Moreover, the development of modern medicine has placed the Human out of reach of biological evolution by ensuring survival of the naturally non-fit. If you want to worship at the altar of that kind of Evolution, the doctor is your enemy – and not just the one doing trans surgery.

The family has evolved *and is evolving* as a part of social evolution. But there is no finality in this evolution; we are a part of it right now. For example, in living memory here in Ireland, women were not allowed to keep certain jobs when they married. Would you say this was somehow “better” because it “evolved” then, or the present arrangement where sides are equally free to work is “better” because it took more time and is thus “more evolved”?

Social institutions are quite fluid when you look at them historically. In fact, slavery, too, was a social institution in Western civilization and has evolved. Yet it was a bad social institution and people died in droves to destroy it.

A view placing the success of Western civilization as dependent on alleged intact social institutions is simply counterfactual. There are no such things as fixed social institutions; in fact, they are way less fixed in the West than elsewhere, and their ability to adapt quickly might have been a major success factor.

So, biological evolution is out of the picture. Social evolution is going on now, and we are a part of it. As are the radical LGBT activists, as are the intransigent conservatives, as are Islamist fundamentalists. There simply is no way to “distort its natural course” because it is all *in* its natural course. For social evolution in itself, no side is more natural than another; they all have their ways, and some will win and some will lose, and then the fittest societies will thrive. Importantly, what was “the fittest” today might no longer be “the fittest” tomorow, because conditions change (and technology is a key part of the change, but is also in turn influenced by social evolution).

Really one needs a better source of political values than “evolution”, because real evolution is by definition value-free.

And finally, re “pursuit of happiness” – that has evolved too. Some of the authors were slaveholders. See where it got. Basically, individual freedom is the one principle that shines as a bright line through all of the legitimate part of the West’s successes from the Enlightenment further; everything else has already been defined and redefined a gazillion times and that’s how social evolution actually works, anyway.

Explain the difference in irrationality of believing you are the opposite sex, even though your chromosomes (an every other physical trait, including your brain, you possess) inform you of exactly what sex you are, and believing you are another species within the context of an unbiased organic biological illness. After we’ve managed to switch out those superficial sex characteristics more easily ‘trans’ed’, what’s next, brain swaps?

Then, tell me how we’re all phobic for even asking a perfectly acceptable question, or making perfectly sound/rational analogies.

Meanwhile, keep your phobic labels to yourself because it is evident who the haters and phobes really are in this debate. It is your community that attaches these labels to any opponents of any behavior you expect to be celebrated by the norm, and to any clinician who clearly demonstrates the truths regarding your community.

Be gay, be proud, but, also be honest. And, stop trying to be the very something that nature did not, intentionally, design you to be. For your benefit, as well as everyone else’s.

Okay, I’ll stick my hand up. I’m a “naturephobe”. I do not want to have my life determined by nature, I prefer reason, thank you very much.

I want a house, not a cave. I want antibiotics and surgery to protect and enhance my health, not to be left to suffer and die when that is the natural course of events (I’d be dead a good few times over). RIght now I am answering a debate I happen to be interested in with someone across the globe, not waiting for the pub to open to go discuss any ideas the neighbours want.

I’m a naturephobe. And I’m set against Luddites of any political colour. (There are feminist luddites, google Lierre Keith).

Your life is, and always has been, determined by nature. Reason/logic derives from nature- it cannot be separated from nature. Man’s unique intellect is not man-made, it evolved via the evolutionary processes only found in nature Conformation to/with nature determines the level of reason a person possesses. That is an observable fact- that is not a theory. How far Man strays from nature’s norms determines both his intellect and his humanity.

Your house is a just modern cave, and nothing more. Humans need an abode, environment dictates what kind of an abode. Many tribes still flourish in caves, tents, and other ancient abodes quite well, while our ‘houses’ fall into the ocean or are consumed by earthquakes and fires. We seem to have denied the realities of nature there, haven’t we?

Antibiotics are a recent good treatment for ills brought on by Man denying or abuse of nature. Man survived up to the development of AB+, and Man will survive post-AB+ therapy, a time we presently encounter. There were natural therapies before the development of AB+ that are just as effective, to which we are returning. It is a fact that more bacteria (and viruses) adversely affect Man today than ever before- and, that Mans abuse of nature is the root of this phenomena. The fallout from overuse (abuse) of AB+ by Man has yet to be fully realized – what do you suppose that outcome will be?

Medicine, including surgery, is a good example of evolution of Mans intellectual (reason) capabilities totally aligned with nature in that it enhances a nature-based life. Medicine has always been part of Mans life history, it is also part of all animals life history. Using this intellect to distort nature (remove Man from nature)is bad for Man.

Recognizing the norms in nature as correctly dictating norms for Man is not a function of Luddites. Evolution is good, including evolution of our society towards any goods for Man, and not toward death of a species. No species intentionally evolves towards its own extinction. Denying the observable principles of evolution seems rather more Luddite than recognizing these realities- does it not?

Now, tell me, again, what norms found in nature that is good for Man leads you to be a naturephobe?

I’m not exactly sure where you get some of the “norms” you seem to infer as coming from Nature. Nature does not have “norms”; it has objective laws but that’s different. Laws of nature are just “they way things are”, not “the way things should be”; or in fancy terms, positive, not normative. In another comment you mention nature intentionally making someone something, but this is a contradiction; nature does not have intentions.

And no, my house is not a fancy cave. A cave is usually created, over millennia at least, by blind forces of nature (in fact I would believe them to be ultimately directed by a divine Creator but that’s another question entirely). A house is built by humans, by design.

So, I live in what humans built. I eat what humans purposefully grew and processed, the final stages of processing done by me and family sometimes, using purpose built machinery. (No paleo diets here thank you very much). I covered distances in my life that, without artificial means, would take months if not years of travelling (definitely years if we exclude the use of horses too – and these were purposefully tamed by Human, not Nature). And of course I survived a number of times when naturally I would be dead.

Your claims that infection has somehow increased by human action is in my view laughable. It has only increased for one reason: there are now living humans weak enough for certain viruses and bacteria to infect them. Previously they would have died before the infection! While there are non-infectious diseases that were indeed brought on by human progress, from certain cancers to certain allergies, I would still take that risk over the medieval situation, anytime.

So, yes, bring on the artificial. (That’s where we are anyway; we would not have a chance to have this conversation without purely artificial means). Bring on the full robotic body for the human brain, ultimately. Then the trans-species can have their field day too, at their own expense, while I would support taxpayer funds for body replacement for people with severe disabilities. And yeah there will be a lot of sexy girls around who may not have been girls in a previous life, so what?

Ram- you can’t disconnect “social” evolution, from its organism- which in this case is Man (get over it), sorry, not even a nice try- but, plenty of spunky words and lofty social concepts woven into largely untrue sentences/statements (and again with your strawmen!).

You are unable to successfully respond to the natural law argument, so you are recreating nature in order to reconstruct your social argument. Clever, but, dishonest.

It is easy enough for a child to grasp: we are our biology- from the individual to the species; from the individuals family to the individuals society.

You may continue to attempt to rewrite (and/or redefine) our biological history along with your revisions of history and language, but, no one using logic can possibly buy it.

Your position is clearly based in politics, while mine is based in biology. You too easily reject biological truths, which are so observable, testable/measurable. What is it you might do with the ‘soft’ sciences, such as sociology and psychology which are far harder to measure?

I must have missed that part of your argument that informs us all of the benefits to society that either SSM or Trans promotion will realize.

No. Your position is not based in biology. It is based in your own reinterpretation of biology, close to the well known pile of bull called “evolutionary psychology” though not exactly the same.

I challenge you to cite ONE peer-reviewed biological publication to support your claims. I do not think you’ll ever find it. And I’m going to tell you why.

You are trying to apply biology in a spectacularly misguided way. There simply is no “right way to do society” by biological sources. The only, single, “biological imperative” is the survival of descendants of a species as a whole. Not an increase in numbers, not a lack of change (there would be no evolution without change).

I do wonder which criteria you use when you write about “biological truths, which are so observable, testable/measurable” in regard to social structures. Numbers of reproduction as criteria would produce laughable results, elevating African societies over Western ones. And the truth is, while a reproductive pattern leading to a decrease in numbers is a *social* problem, it is not a *biological* problem until actual extinction of the species in an area is threatened. And according to all forms of analysis there is no such threat.

It appears likely that the “white” Western population will dwindle as a result of less emphasis on procreation (with trans and gay people contributing to it, but numerically much less than the choices of the heterosexual majority to have less children). But just how likely is it that humans will be extinct from Western countries? A left-wing analysis would just see less dense and more diverse populations. A far right-wing one would see massive displacements with migrants who have a different pattern of reproduction. Either way, biology *does not care*.

The modern Western emphasis on individual welfare does impact numbers of procreation, yes. While I am not gay nor trans I am literally a part of it. In the house I (and family) now have, an Irish couple has brought up five children in the 60-80s. We have two children, and the very same house feels slightly too small for us as the kids have to share a room. This is how standards have changed in just a few decades. There are forces (loads of them in Russia, where this is welcomed on a government level) that want to reverse this trend, pushing people into large and multi-generational families to increase reproduction at the cost of individual comfort. I don’t think this will work.

“Natural law”, while it has an important place in Western jurisprudence and an even bigger place in Roman Catholic doctrine, is not a biological concept and never was. While we could go into the individualistic vs communitarian interpretations of natural law, it would be an argument of political philosophy, not of biology.

Now, apart from biology as a science, there are biologists as people. My mother works at the biology department of the Moscow State University. and while she is not strictly a biologist I obviously encountered them a lot. They would care for a more “natural” society but most would mean “eco-friendly” more than anything; their concern would be surviving and thriving of species other than humanity, as the love for these species would have drawn them into the field. Their critique of modern technological society would concentrate on high energy use and pollution, as well as on the restrictions on a person’s contact with nature imposed by city life.

P.S. There’s another science you might have a problem with. Geography. I don’t actually have an “adopted continent” as a large part of Russia is geographically in Europe, too. I’ve never ever been to any other continent yet. Politically, “Europe” sometimes means “the EU” or “the EU plus theoretical candidates” (the latter definition ends at Russia’s border and funnily includes Turkey, traditionally considered a part of Asia except Istanbul). But as a *continent*, Europe ends somewhere in the Urals.

“Trans” is much harder to spot than “gay” in non-human species, but we do know of persistent presence of trans individuals in human societies. And yes, in Western civilization too, priests of Cybele in Rome were trans.

“Perhaps we are not ‘transphobic’, but you are just factphobic or logicphobic.”

No you’re transphobic, as you are comparing people undergoing a MtF transformation as wanting to change into an animal. Furthermore, you’re telling the entire queer community that they don’t belong in society. How much more insulting can you get honestly? Telling them to jump off a bridge?

“As soon as the LGBTQ community decided to infiltrate, with the purpose of significantly changing the prevailing culture by targeting the uniquely heterosexual institution that is the foundation for that culture, to achieve their own selfish goals, their aggressive actions prompted the SSM oppositions retort.”

Then continue to expect failure in your movement towards children’s rights. Continue to expect others to compare you to hate groups, and intolerant anti-progressives. And in the end, just expect total failure. Im serious. Ireland passed the same-sex marriage bill, as many other countries have done already. Next its going to be America and the supreme court. They’re not going to listen to some old christian white man babbling about how queer people threaten traditional values, and how they need to be thrown out of society. They’re simply not…

Whats sad is that hostile people like you make it very difficult for those of us who are trying to find a middle ground. Whenever we want to speak up about the horrors of surrogacy, sperm/egg donning, and other atrocities of the baby-selling movement, we get immediately associated with things like you.

For those of you obviously comprehension-challenged: what I actually said was that your minority community should not be permitted to change the very foundation of our society, which is marriage that forms the natural family, because the ills that may result from those changes risk adversely affecting society.

You can not accurately quote my comment, in any honest context, as having said you don’t belong in society.

And you believe that you have the right, after such a blatant distortion of my words, to label others?

Nobody changed marriage by simply extending the federal rights to consenting same sex couples. Stop with the nonsense, it’s really tiring and people just don’t want to hear it any more. Your marriage and heterosexual marriage have not been altered in the slightest and you, nor your church is under no obligation to recognize homosexual marriages. But the Federal government, that we all pay taxes to, has the obligation to disperse those rights and benefits equally and without discrimination of gender and sexuality.

And this entire trans issue has nothing to do with same sex marriage, you’re simply trying to tie the two together because your side has dishonestly and delusionally ranted about the sky falling after gay marriage is legalized. It’s utter nonsense.

Well it was your side that added the T into the mix so do not blame us when they are together and it most certainly has to with children’s rights–you know the right to not have to share intimate space with full bodied males. The right of girls to change their tampax without my Lord Ladyface getting himself off or worse. LGBT a mens’ rights movement. No the sky is not falling but Transgender women sure rape and murder a whole lota of real women and children–and we have the LGBT rights movement to that thank for giving males their right to harm females–thanks a bunch ZZ so glad for your contribution to social justice.

Marriage has obviously always been one man and one woman or else you would not need a SCOTUS decision to determine otherwise.

Nonsense is what the LBGTQ agenda is all about, isn’t it?

I never mentioned any church or religion in my argument-why do you keep bringing it up?

Of course the trans issue is linked to your lobby’s agenda- what does the T signify?

Who is really being dishonest here?

“My side” is supported by nature- which is observable by all. I don’t even need to cite scientific literature to support my side – anymore than I have to cite it to support my claims that the sky is not yellow. My claims are aligned with fact, as observed in nature.

Really- isn’t that just the end of the debate? And, isn’t that why you keep roping in religion to my argument? You can beat back the religious argument in the current antireligious atmosphere, but, you can’t beat back the nature argument.

You may win the court case (think ‘Jim Crow’ for awhile), but, you can never force an observing and logical person to accept your premise based upon facts regarding nature.

Like I said, nature wins out, ultimately. And, that fact is as good for your community as it is for all of humanity.

It isn’t a distortion its the truth. You’re a biter hateful old white man and your opinions means nothing to the world but good ol’ fashion christian hate. You want proof? Look how you’re losing. Your rants are tiresome and pathetic and will never sway Supreme Court decisions. So you can take your arguments and you can shove them up or down your pipe. Which ever one you choose, they are pointless and will not make a difference in the end.

You will lose, gay marriage will win. You know why??? Because so much of the conservative moment is built on intolerance and prejudice.

–“Ireland passed the same-sex marriage bill, as many other countries have done already. Next its going to be America and the supreme court. They’re not going to listen to some old christian white man babbling about how queer people threaten traditional values, and how they need to be thrown out of society. They’re simply not…”

At least Ireland did it by the will of the people. The US did it by judicial activist diktat. You are free to celebrate, except that diktat is never ultimately good and it’s only a matter of time befire you are on the receiving end of something too.

Ram- nature expresses its norms via the form, function, and behavior (also dictated by form and function), of the most successful individuals, communities, population of any given species. I use the term “norm” as it is used in the science of biology, not as it is used in sociology or psychology. While laws dictate and guide nature, there are certainly norms evidenced in nature. These norms found in nature inform us of what the standard (norm; usually a spectrum) is for a species. One example is albinism. It occurs, as a regressive trait, naturally, but, it is not a biological norm. It is an undesirable trait that is managed (not eliminated) via natural selection. Unless, it is specifically selected for- by Man. Mans manipulation of nature has led to many negative outcomes. We’re on the precipice of a possible ‘other’ negative outcome with SSM and other related, and unrelated issues. Our technology can be used for good. We need to be sure it isn’t also used for bad.

You really need to understand the “luddite’ vs. natural law (as expressed by laws that govern nature, as well as the outcomes which are expressed in terms of ‘norms”) argument. You’re back at it, again. I am not a proponent of Luddite-ism (obviously- so please stop making such an absurd analogy- again!); I am a proponent of biology, which is in perfect harmony with Man when Man permits the laws and norms found in nature to guide his reason. All of Mans intellectual ventures are good for Man only when those ventures are in harmony with natural law. Anytime Mans reason leads him to contradict or oppose nature, he falters- individually (as an organism), and right on through up to the species level.

So, apparently, you’re not very well versed in STD biology? Well, while you are laughing at such a ridiculous claim, you might wish to educate yourself, perhaps by using some of that technology to which you claim to be so bonded, and do some research. Maybe AIDs would be a good place to start. If you think human behavior is unrelated to emerging disease, think again. The oceans, our forests and all living organisms harbor pathogens. Human behavior determines if and how they will affect us.

Ever wonder why the oldest humans being chronicled lately are usually found in the mountains of Asia and other equally remote (from industrialization) locations? Ever wonder why lifespan for urban dwellers is shorter than their rural counterparts? Many factors feed into lifespan, all across the ages, for all peoples. One should not manipulate the facts (talk about reductionism!) on such an extensive and convoluted topic, just to try to support a questionable position. Lifespan measured at the organism level is no true measure of success for that organisms community/population or species.

But, it is noteworthy that you seem to think only on the individual/organism level.

There is no such thing as Transgender. Jenner is a man. He is a fetish driven male. A male fetish is not a social justice cause and his arousal triggers are not something that actual women have to honor or pander to. Jenner will be keeping his junk. You know why? So he can pleasure himself in Ladyface. And since there is no such thing as Transgender there is no such thing as transphobic. It is all made up because mens sexual pleasure and their right to pleasure themselves and demand an audience is the ultimate in a male privilege. But he and his fetish has nothing to do with women. See below abstract.

“Autogynephilia is defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women’s clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence. Some theorists and clinicians reject the transsexual typology and theory of motivation derived from autogynephilia; their objections suggest a need for additional research. The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called ‘erotic target identity inversions’, in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22005209

Isn’t it just awful how sometimes heterosexual parents weren’t capable of teaching their children how to speak when they’re communicating in a group which includes women, mothers and other polite individuals?

They come off as sick, mentally and slightly neurotic. It’s confusing for me. I’ve seen the bullies that Mrs. Faust has to put up with, but those on her side tend to be just as irrationally hateful and just plain wicked at times. I really really really wish there was some rational middle ground. Maybe trans* people should not make the change when their children are already use to them being the gender that they are. But again, what about trans* people who have kids after the hormonal therapy and surgeries? I was really disappointed with how insulting this post came across. Maybe it wasn’t Katy’s intentions but sheesh. And the respondents? Worse. All i heard in my head when reading this were wicked bitter people who simply hate queer people.

Let me reinterpret your question in the context. A male, Jenner, demands that women role play in his sexual fetish against their will in the public square and you try to deflect from that with–tisk tisk so crude, swoon.

It is absolutely necessary that people know that Jenner is a fetish driven male and that particular male fetish involves exhibitionism and pleasuring himself pretending to be some male image of woman. The reality reframes the narrative. Bue Bye to the whole hero narrative and his courage.

It is not my fault that men imagine their ejaculation should be framed as a social justice cause. Odd though you find a women “vulgar and crude” but a man in Lady Face to acting out a compulsive sexual fetish is what? Darling? Charming? You will forgive me if I do not find the image of a 60 year old man in Ladyface pleasuring himself as anything remotely related to being a human female.

No one had any image, until you decided to add your vulgarity to this discussion.

It’s a shame your parents weren’t capable of teaching you how to behave appropriately when you’re commenting on the blog of someone who is a respectable mother and wife. You’re totally out of line- and if Mr. Faust decided to sock you in the eye, I’d be standing right behind him.

My parents, since you mention them, were gay. And given what I know–that was tame. People need to be educated about what is going on because LGBT lie, a lot. Maybe she will sock me or not. It is her blog and she is within her right and I respect that. Given my background I suspect you know how much more detailed I could be. And I suspect she knows that Transgender women are men with a compulsive sexual fetish–should we not mention how the molest their own children. Is that vulgar? Look up Denise Shick. BTW I am also a wife and mother and the last thing I want are daughters having share space with a man like Jenner and his “lady stick ” in the dressing room. I get it sir women better shut up and sit down–right sir. Is it out of line not to fall for your manipulations. And sir do not tell women what to do or threaten women with male violence–your veneer is cracking–not pretty. But not a surprise either.

My apologies. I presumed you were a male commenter. The women around here generally don’t descend into your sort of commentary. If you’re a wife and mother, I’m terribly sorry for the victims.

You should read Mrs. Faust more carefully and realize there are standards of behaviour that separate people in the world. That’s why I respect her even though we don’t agree on everything. Hopefully one day you can achieve her level of dignity and grace.

Well Pink I am not exactly gender conforming, as they say in the parlance–not hard to understand why. So despite being a size 4 and just darling in my new white dress with black poke dots I communicate in a male style. I do not suffer fools well and I doubt that is a required standard. Nice attempt to swipe at my family–oh all the manipulative tricks–it feels like old home week here, abusive and familiar–like comfort food, a grilled cheese and tomato soup for most people. Me I just like some good old LGBT gas light and faux missive–good god we all puffed up tonight sir? Its a big world sir and it takes all kinds.

For many, shallow sentimentality has replaced reason and its attendant angst and rebellion against anything which calls on reason, good conduct and morals based on a mindset or lack of mindset on nonsense — that all things, that heterosexual, homosexual, transgender etc. are equal ultimately that good and evil are equal. The old “I’m Okay, you’re Okay” sentiment including the good, the bad and the ugly. This reflects a society with no moral standing or judgement whose adherents are unwilling to even reflect on their life choices or simply engage in conversation with those who disagree with them.

His kids are no more damaged than your children are by your closed minded views that judge others. I feel bad for your children knowing that they can’t be who they are if one ends up being gay or unable to have children that they won’t need support where they need it the most.

Katy’s blog is mostly about empathy. We share our identities with our loved ones. The good news is that the Jenner kids are grown and independent. The bad news is that the procedure is notoriously unreliable for achieving the desired self-satisfaction. Families of older TS also can expect serious adjustment burdens. Adult sexuality is private but explaining why grandma has a beard, is intentionally hyper-masculine and sees himself as a man is not a conversation to have with a toddler. “Grandma was chemico-surgically dissolved, but this nice man has taken her place.” From adolescent family members forming their own fragile social-sexual identities, expect the harshest rejection. More than open rejection, expect detachment, eventual isolation from children, grandchildren and extended families. Support systems shrink, once-close siblings split apart or fight over the “right way” to deal with the TS parent, the white lies, cover-stories. But “if you love me then you will re-shape your beliefs and those of everyone around you to confirm my new identity!” Loneliness increases, time passes… perhaps surgical revisions, drug (hormone) addiction, liver toxicty, etc. If the TS can be exploited by media moguls and for-profit doctors at the price of discretion and family privacy, then adjustment may be even more shameful or painful. Caitlin Jenner reminds me of that magical bicentennial summer and little Michael Jackson, another boy-prodigy who turned to elective surgery and drugs to quiet his mind–“the love you save may be your own.” Let’s hope life ends better for her than it did for him.

And interestingly enough, I think we could apply many of those things to the children of divorced parents. I’ve lost count of the amount of people I know where one child takes one side, the sibling takes the other. Rejection, detachment. Strained relationships with step-parents. Substance abuse, broken lives. Fights over money.

We agree on the analogy with a bad divorce Pink. There are many pathways and blind alleys to sadness.

But children have a special view of the “space” that is a parent’s body. In my experience, part of the child’s identity is bonded to that very part of the parent’s identity that a TS is trying to control/change/eliminate. That is a lose-lose dynamic for the TS. Divorce is not inherently lose-lose.

The substance abuse, to clarify, meant the hormones/drugs typically needed for the change. They are not a reaction to the choice, like divorce, they are part of the (difficult and expensive) choice itself. It is a hard road even without an international media circus.

eh-hem
Suggestion number 9845: where’s Frau and why is she not moderating this yet?
Come on, comments about people’s ‘parts’ bring the tone down in a very bad way. A genuine exchange of ideas of any kind is fine, but vulgarity for vulgarity’s sake is in such bad taste.

People assume wrongly that these men do not have working parts and that they are not DANGEROUS to women and girls–ehm ehm, These men, who “feel like women” rape and kill women at the same rate as all other men. Then they want to share space with women and girls. They like to keep the fact that they have a working penis quiet because they love the Ladies Room. So please save the pearl clutching over their penis. They happen to be dangerous to women like all other men. I think women’s safety a bigger priority than your phony sensibilities–

I’ll ask you again to moderate your language when you comment here. This is a family friendly environment, and that’s nothing to do with pearl clutching. You can say everything you want to say without being crude and offensive.

You sir will not be dictating my language to me–not today and not ever. It is crude and rather unsavory but it is the truth. Family and children require protection and in this case that requires honesty. Here’s the bottom line and there is no deflecting from it. Jenner gets off–he pleasures himself in Ladyface. He has a uncontrollable sexual fetish–do you know how many of these guys die of autoerotic asphyxia. Do you know what they do to women and children–you want silence–forget it. Crude, I am being crude–hey I am not acting out a sexual fantasy in public. Jenner is. And you have the nerve to call me crude. I am going to list a few of the names of Transgender women who are in fact men that are serving time for the rape, sodomy and murder of actual women and children. These guys has raised the statical rate of violence against children and women 300% for the entire LGBT community. They are the worst thing to happen to you guys. You just do not like that I am stating facts–because how can men pretend that they are women if women know and say they are men acting out a compulsive sexual fetish. That somehow does not carry the same currency as the whole twisted tale of woe and courage–such authentic bravery is really just another porn soaked 60 year old broken down male.

Families also require protection from unbalanced and disturbed individuals like you. Your comments ooze manipulation and vile tactics. That’s precisely what your use of shock imagery is about.
And your use of ‘studies’ is a dramatic failure. Anyone can cite a figure in a vacuum. There’s nothing easier than making a specious point that way. How about this: The Abel & Harlow study which interviewed thousands of sex offenders in America revealed that 93% of them are religious, most being Christian. Then I could list case after case of religious child sexual abuse/rape- and make a FALSE argument that there’s a causal link.
There is NO causal link. Being religious does not cause child abuse, the same way that being transgendered doesn’t cause child abuse or rape.
People like you poison the debate, you poison the tone and you cause harm to everyone involved.

Ah yes there is the ad homimen– women disturbed. Misogyny is so very dull and predictable. Oh I am such a threat that families need protection? That’s a good one.

Reality is not a discussion. Jenner is a male. Given that, it is not shock imagery it is honest and elucidates the pathology of autogynephilia–a male fetish not to be confused with a human female. I will not be forced to role play in a male sexual fetish against my will. You or he can’t demand my consent or other women’s’ consent–because then it is not consent. You are free to pretend but you and Jenner and the whole LGBT is not free to force others. Nor will I be pretending Jenner is a women because Vanity Fair and prime time have said so.

You would like make it obscure because the reality is not as compelling as “a woman trapped in a mans body”. It is a thin and fragile narrative because it is untrue. I have no problem speaking about the sexual component of the male fetish that drives Jenner. I have no problem speaking about sex in general because a grew up in a sex obsessed driven culture where all adult sex was part of “family” life and the adults forced their sex into the children’s lives. This forced me to think about these issues in ways most people have not. My conclusion is that it dangerous to play along and not speak about the reality. This I realize is inconvenient and contradicts the party line`

As a married mother I know what is family is and what is needed. As the child raised by same sex adults and in the gay community, I know what damages children. You have neither experience.
There is no such thing as Transgender and Jenner is male. And males commit most sex crimes and most crimes of violence. The statistic and studies show–and it is no surprise, that men that claim to be women rape and kill and even a higher rate than average men and not anywhere near the low rate of women. Women and mothers have the right to know the guy in the skirt in the bathroom with their six year old daughter is a threat to her, just like any other male. I happen to think that a child’s life is of more value than a males arousal triggers.

Go ahead make lists. There are also lists of all the Transgender women that have raped, sodomized, tortured and killed women and children. His sexual fetish is not more important than women’s lives nor is his sexual arousal and pleasure a civil rights issue or social justice cause. People like me bring truth and experience to the discussion. And that’s an imperative since LGBT tactics are to obscure always and deflect often. Notice how the use confused kids is all out in the media grind–why because really Jenner’s truth is screamingly obvious.

Right Now LGBT is fighting for Transgender Women to use not only the bathroom, but dorm rooms, hospital room, rehab, locker, changing, nursing home. This is a small sample of the violent sexual crimes that Transgender women have committed. There was a large study done by UC that LBGT has had pulled off the internet because it exposed the fact that 23% are violent and serving time for crimes against the body and 43% are serving time for sexual crimes against women and children. Men should not be in women’s safe spaces because it is very dangerous and LGBT GLAAD and the HRC could not care less how many women are killed by Transgender Women.

Donna (Douglas Perry) Serial killer of women 3 women, suspected in several others The Women Perry Murdered, (Yolanda Sapp, 26, Nikkie Lowe, 34, and Kathlene Brisbois, 38, were all shot and killed within three months of each other in 1990. Sapps and Brisbois were found completely nude, while Lowe’s body was partially clothed)
. Ronny Edward Darnell, Rape, Convicted of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl
Thomas Lee Benson, identifies as woman, serial rapist of children
. Lynda Myers, NB (Timothy Myers) 2011 sexual assault on a child—2 boys
Sherri Masbruch, CA (Richard) Rape x2
. Richard Rendler, CA on trail for raping a woman
. Leslie Ann Nelson, a transsexual killed a police officer and an investigator with an AK-47 rifle.
. Nevada Raven Navajo, murdered woman 12. Robert Kosilek, murdered his wife, sliced her head off when he strangled her with piano wire
Vonlee Nicole Titlow, once known as Harry Titlow, was found guilty on two counts of second-degree murder for the death of Donald Rogers, 74, of Troy.
Olsen serial rapist of children. We should hear his side of it: testified that he is 61 years old and now refers to himself as a woman, although he has not undergone sex change surgery. He admitted that he was convicted of raping three girls. He intended to rape M. and T. but changed his mind.Olsen acknowledged the facts of his prior sexual offenses and explained that he was on drugs at the time and was cross-dressing in secret. He was angry because he felt that he did not have any control in his life He expressed his anger through rape “[b]ecause it was a control issue” and because he “identified [himself] as a woman [he] took it out on women.” I doubt he is a rare bird–

A woman serving a life sentence for killing her roommate with a baseball bat has died in custody.
Katherine Anne Johnson, 66, died Sunday in the institutional hospital at Abbotsford’s Fraser Valley Institution for Women. A cause of death was not released.
In October 2007 Johnson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the killing of her roommate Horace Stevens, 56, in their East Vancouver apartment. She’d used a baseball bat to beat him to death after a domestic dispute. Johnson had a lengthy criminal history.
Five years ago, Johnson petitioned the Federal Court of Canada to have the Correctional Service of Canada approve and pay for her sex-change operation. She alleged that the operation to remove her penis — a “penectomy” — had been unreasonably delayed and demanded to be transferred to a women’s prison to protect her from attacks by other inmates.
Johnson said she was born with a female mind but the body of a male, and has always identified as a female.
In her application, Johnson wrote: “My only hope is that I will be given a penectomy and will be transferred to the women’s prison. I feel I might only have a couple more years to live and I did not want to live the last years of my life in a male prison.”

There following trans woman murderers are mentioned in this Australian article.
Pual Luckman aka Nicole Louise Pearce raped sexually abused and tortured a boy to death.
Noel Crompton Hall aka Madisson Hall shot a man in the back.
Geoffrey Ian Websdale aka Michelle Websdale went on a shooting spree where he killed two, left one man a quadraplegic, and shot a woman in the arm and back.
Paul “Paula” Denyer says he “hated women in general”, and killed three women before identifying as transsexual in prison.

Daniel Turner was convicted of criminal charges in Michigan arising after an incident involving the kidnapping and molestation of a child. Turner argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to investigate and develop a diminished capacity defense. Turner argued that his apparent gender identity disorder and the complainant’s testimony that he urinated on her supported such a defense. From the record, it appears that Daniel would dress as a woman and expressed dislike at being male and wanted to become female.A man lost his argument that his diagnosis of gender identity disorder should have led to a reduced sentence for sexually assaulting children.Teresa Brugliera, Offender ID W47605, is serving a life sentence in a Massachusetts prison. He has court-ordered treatment for his gender identity disorder. Murder Lee Gustafson entered no contest pleas to one count of repeated sexual assault of a child and one count of second-degree sexual assault of another child. The court imposed concurrent sentences totaling four years’ initial confinement and five years’ extended supervision. Instead, citing new factors, he requested a reduced sentence of two years, six months’ initial confinement and six years, six months’ extended supervision. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing and denied Gustafson’s motion for reconsideration. Gustafson appealled, contending that the sentencing court erred by not considering his diagnosis of gender identity disorder as a factor that would apparently justify a reduced sentence.
Raven Navajo was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison last month after being found guilty of second-degree murder in the killing of Brenda Schmalfeldt, a woman Navajo had met at a bar in January 2007.

Richard, “Sherry” Masbruch. rape and torture. He tied two women up and sadistically tortured them with an electrical wire before raping them. (In a womens prison)

Luka Rocco Magnotta was extradited from Germany to Canada on Monday on charges including murder and abusing a corpse.
Adult performer Barbie, who was born male but has been living as a woman since the age of 16,

Justice John McMahon gave Christopher also a transgender woman named Jessica was given full acess to a womans homeless shelter — and recived an indefinite jail sentence. attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.
“He has demonstrated, from the age of 12 until the present, an inability to control his sexual impulses,” McMahon said.
Jessica Hambrook served four years in prison in Quebec for sexually abusing a five-year-old girl and while on bail for that crime, assaulted a 27-year-old intellectually challenged woman.
The prosecution asserted Hambrook, a former stripper and escort, simply cannot control his deviant sexual urges and that locking him up indefinitely is the best way to protect the public. A convicted sexual predator who claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters could be declared a dangerous offender this month. Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — has attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years. Serial Rapist of children and disabled women

Curtis Gene Copeland is a high risk child sex offender who exposed himself to a girl. He now claims he is transgender and is suing the Texas prison system for its failure to provide him with treatment for gender dysphoria.

Seth “Venus” Rountree, Murder, San Quentin

Douglas (Donna) Perry, 61, is in federal prison for a firearms offense and her sentence is almost up. Authorities charged Perry with three counts of 1st Degree Murder for the 1990 murders of Yolanda Sapp, 26, Nikkie Lowe, 34, and Katherine Brisbois, 34. Serial Killer of women

Teresa Brugliera, Offender ID W47605, is serving a life sentence in a Massachusetts prison. He has court-ordered treatment for his gender identity disorder.
Charles Norwood, a prisoner at the Waupun Correctional Institution, filed a lawsuit alleging that Wisconsin Department of Corrections employees violate his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to treat him for Gender Identity Disorder. Norwood identifies as a transsexual female and believes that he suffers from Gender Identity Disorder. Battery

A Michigan prison inmate with gender identity disorder can sue a doctor and a guard accused of ignoring problems with his breasts. Vonlee Titlow says a corrections officer snickered and failed to seek medical care when he complained about pain in his breasts in 2006. Titlow is male but considers himself a female and received silicone injections to increase his breast size before entering prison in 2002. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit will allow Titlow’ lawsuit to proceed. The 45-year-old Titlow is in prison for second-degree murder in Oakland County.

Andrew Reid pleaded guilty to first-degree murder after he beat a man to death with a baseball bat and made a woman who accompanied him look at the dead man. In August, he filed a civil rights lawsuit against state prison officials alleging deliberate indifference to “his serious medical need” related to Gender Identity Disorder (GID). In Response, prison officials provide a copy of the ADC GID policy, Administrative Directive (AD) 09-20, together with the record of Reid’s meeting with the GID Committee. The Committee met with Reid on February 22, 2013, and concluded that he did not meet the clinical criteria of a GID diagnosis. Prison officials also provide to the Court clinical encounter records from August 26, 2013, October 8, 2013, and October 30, 2013, which show that Reid is receiving psychiatric treatment and medications and reports no self-harm ideation. The court thus denied Reid’s motion for an injunction ordering the prison to give him hormone replacement therapy.

Thomas Lamb’s case came before the Kansas Parole Board. Lamb, a convicted rapist, murderer and kidnapper, had provided the Board with several letters vouching for his fitness for parole and his need for sexual reassignment treatment.

The State of California filed an amended petition to extend the commitment of William Karl Olsen under the Sexually Violent Predators Act after his commitment expired in October of 2008. The petition stated that on October 5, 2000, Olsen was committed as a sexually violent predator to the state Department of Mental Health for two years, and since that date he “has been consistently committed to a new term as a Sexually Violent Predator.” The People asserted that Olsen “continues to meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator in that he continues to have a current diagnosed mental disorder that makes him a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior in the future.” Serial rape murder

Louis Massei, 52, was convicted of the kidnapping, rape and sodomy of a 16-year-old girl. He is suing the State of New York for being civilly committed as a sexually violent sex offender after he served his prison sentence.

A transsexual former soldier who stabbed an innocent schoolboy in a row at a caravan park has been jailed for seven years. Melissa Cae was wearing a blonde wig when he repeatedly stabbed the 16-year-old, who was on holiday with his parents.

Transwoman inmate David Birrell lost his lawsuit that he was denied participation in a prison program because he is transgender. Birrell has been serving a sentence for first degree murder since 1983.

Theodore “Francine” Lorigo, a registered sex offender and transgender woman, violated the terms of his sex offender status by trespassing on school property,

Although the exact motive remains unknown, Sacramento police say a shooting on a lightrail train does not appear to be motivated by any kind of hate or bias. Police arrested Lynnsey Evakarla Braun, 32, on suspicion of murder in connection with the death of a man in his 50s. Braun had earlier been identified as a woman. However, Braun’s booking sheet at the Sacramento County Jail identifies him as a man. A source who was not authorized to speak publicly said Braun is transgender and identifies as a woman.
Christopher King aka Kryzie King aka Janaie Jones is a transgender woman who allegedly killed a child. He also has a prior conviction for rape. Torture and murder of 4 year old
Joseph Patrick Bueche allegedly hit a convenience store clerk over the head with a bottle after she forgot to call him “she.”
Melissa Young is a transgender woman charged with killing Allan Williamson in Glenure Loan, Edinburgh on Christmas Day. Williamson was imprisoned for six years and put on the sex offenders register for trying to rape a woman in Uphall, West Lothian.
Mr. Lamb is currently incarcerated and wants sex reassignment surgery so he can “be a woman.”
A pre-op transsexual locked up in a women’s jail for a savage torture-killing has been moved to a different prison after claims he was having sex with female inmates.
Murderer Paris Green, 22, who was previously known as Peter Laing,

Transvestite Says in Letter That He ‘Hurt’ Elderly Ventura Man – Los Angeles Times.
A man lost his argument that his diagnosis of gender identity disorder should have led to a reduced sentence for sexually assaulting children.
Lee Gustafson entered no contest pleas to one count of repeated sexual assault of a child and one count of second-degree sexual assault of another child.

Paula (Paul) Witherspoon, serial child rapists, violated parole and LAMBDA attorney argues he need to be in the ladies room because it is consitant with his inner feeling and indenity as “women”

Jeffrey Norsworthy began serving a life sentence within the CDCR in 1987. In 1998 or 1999, a correctional counselor transferred plaintiff to the Department of Mental Health within the California Medical Facility for a Gender Dysphoria Evaluation.

In late 1992, Wolfgang Schmidt was sentenced to 15 years in prison, they sent him to the Forensic Hospital in Brandenburg.
Schmidt asked the court that if he would be addressed in the future as a woman and asked that his name would be changed.
In 2001, the courts granted Schmidt’s wishes and his name was changed to “Beate”.
Beate now is trying to push forward to getting a sex change but he/she is given hormones but not everyone respects Schmidt’s desire to be a woman. “The other’s are nasty to me. They say i could get a fat ass. That hurts. Then i have to cry, i cry alot now, but it helps me. I feel the more feminine inside” saids Schmidt, talking about the other inmates. Killed Five women aged between 34 and 66 years, and a child of three months

Death Toll Victims of Transgenderwomen is climbing everyday— A 35-year-old transgender woman (A male) from Columbus, Ga. is behind bars for allegedly molesting a minor.
Police say Christopher Russell also known as “Keema” met a 15-year-old boy on a social media site. According to the police report, the two chatted and decided to meet at the minor’s house on March 6 at about 9 p.m. at the teenager’s house on London Street.
Police say the two were together, until the victim’s mother called police when she found Russell with her 15-year-old son.

Gregory Schwartz charged with 3 feloniest, “It was a bizarre scene in a Clairemont Big Lots store on Friday when a grown man, wearing a Barbie outfit and a tutu, hid in a women’s bathroom and tried to sexually assault a woman.”
4/12/14 David Scott Teeter, 48, also known as Heather Teeter, was taken into custody Wednesday in Hurst, Texas. He faces extradition to Pennsylvania.
Teeter, whose last local address was listed as 3 Marlenes Road in Salem Township, faces felony counts of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault and endangering the welfare of children.
The alleged assaults happened between 2000 and 2010.
According to an affidavit of probable cause filed by Trooper John Decker:
One of the alleged victims came to the state police barracks at Honesdale on Feb. 27, telling Decker that, three years ago, when she was 10, she would take rides with Teeter to Bethlehem.
“She advised that he would tell her that she was coming with him and she had no choice whether or not she wanted to go,” the affidavit states.

Ron Hood is a child rapist who also consumes child porn. He identifies as a woman named Erika. He is currently housed at the Florida Civil Commitment Center as a sexually violent predator. He filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Children and Families for failing to have a policy to help transgender inmates like him. He also claimed he has the right to choose the clothing he should wear while confined and that the facility is constitutionally obligated to purchase all the clothing and “feminine” products he requests. The court rejected the claim that Hood has a right to “women’s clothing,” but allowed his lawsuit for failure to have a “transgender policy” to proceed. While housed at the Florida Civil Commitment Center, Hood was able to download and view child porn.

This case brings to mind the case of “Sylvia” Cavanaugh. In that case, authorities also struggled to place a violent male transgender:
“Canada: The first Canadian prisoner to receive a state-funded surgical sex change was a man named Richard Chaperon alias Ricky Chaperon alias Richard Kavanagh who brutally hammer-killed a transsexual male prostitute, Leo James Black/Lisa Janna Black in 1987 in Toronto. He was sentenced to life with possibility of parole after 15 years. Bored with Millhaven, a male prison, in 1999 he sued the Canadian Human Rights Commission demanding surgery to make him appear more female. Like Kosilek, he claimed profound psychiatric disability due to transgenderism. He changed his name to Sylvia Kavanagh. He wanted to be transferred to a women’s prison. He was transferred to Joliet women’s prison with penis intact and reportedly sexually assaulted women there. He was then given Canada’s first government-funded surgical “sex change” in 2001. In 2005 Kavanagh exploded in violence and fought off guards while trashing the women’s facility. He caused over $50,000 in damage and injured guards before he was restrained. He was then transferred to the Grand Valley Institution for Women. Inmates there are quoted as living in “constant fear” of Richard, who was reported to have battered women there. Prison officials stated that Kavanaugh’s ultra-violence required a special handling unit for ultra-violent “female” offenders, something they had never required before (for actual females), and the building of a special ultra-violent “women’s” facility for Kavanaugh was proposed.”http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/into-the-mind-of-kosilek-graces-daughter-a-book-review/

1. A transgendered woman: Thomas Roy Forster, 35, pleaded guilty to the June 2010 second-degree murder of Zachary Waller, 21.”
2. Sgt. Lynn Benton aggravated murder in the violent death of his estranged spouse.”
3. Herman Burton, man who police said dresses and identifies as a woman, pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, arson and abuse of corpse in the Oct. 30, 2010 killing of Patrick Michael Brady, , was arrested in Center City on Nov. 2, 2010 and charged with strangling Burton and then setting the eighth-floor hotel room on fire.

On October 5, 1997, Dezeray Marie Roblero-Barrios (real name Wesley Ross Mullins) attempted to sexually assault a six-year-old boy in a K-Mart restroom. On February 9, 1998, Barrios pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct in relation to this incident. He was sentenced to serve a total of 36 months imprisonment. Barrios was released from prison on October 4, 2000, and was transferred directly to the custody of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) pending the outcome of a petition to commit him as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). In June 2001, the district court committed Barrios indeterminately as a sexually dangerous person. In July 2001, Barrios was sent back to prison for violating his parole by assaulting a staff member at MSOP. He returned to MSOP on April 19, 2005. During his commitment, Barrios legally changed his name from Wesley Ross Mullins to Dezeray Marie Roblero-Barrios because he says he feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body.
Washington State has a facility for convicted violent sex offenders called the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island near Tacoma. Sex offenders Hank Pollock, 47, and Keith “Rebecca” Elmore, 57, recently got married at the prison. The friendship between Pollock and Elmore reaches back a decade to when Pollock moved to the SCC. Keith “Rebecca” Elmore was already there after pleading guilty in 1995 in Clark County to second-degree kidnapping and second-degree assault with sexual motivation. When Elmore petitioned to be released in 1999, the state Attorney General’s Office persuaded the judge to deny it based on Elmore’s “sexually-motivated cannibalistic fantasies.” Pollock, who changed his name from Andrew Drescher in 2002, was convicted of five counts of sex crimes against children in Kitsap and Thurston counties from 1987 to 1993. He was committed to the SCC for being a repeat sex offender.transgender woman lost his claim that his gender identity disorder should result in a reduced sentence for child sexual abuse.
Andrew Reid pleaded guilty to first-degree murder after he beat a man to death with a baseball bat and made a woman who accompanied him look at the dead man. In August, he filed a civil rights lawsuit against state prison officials alleging deliberate indifference to “his serious medical need” related to Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

Sarah Baker Alan Baker, originally from Croydon, South London, was initially locked up for kidnapping and torturing his step-mother’s brother.
But after trying to kill an alleged child rapist behind bars in 1998 he is now serving an indeterminate sentence. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…
Anny May Stevens was born in 1962 as Edward Dean Stevens. Stevens she invited a neighbor, a 35-year-old man, into her room. Stevens said he tried to sexually assault her, and she killed him—first stabbing him with a scissors, then striking him with a hatchet. She cut him more than 80 times.

Sean Paul Gossman, 24, was sentenced Thursday on charges of receiving and possessing child pornography. He pleaded guilty in October.
His attorney asked for a minimum five-year prison term in a memorandum filed in February. Rafael Villarruel of Detroit argued Gossman may not be safe in a male prison as a transgender man who has lived as a female since he was 17 years old.
Rodney S. White Jr. was convicted of a sex offense with a minor in 2011. In subsequent years, he identified as a woman. He was recently murdered
Rockelle Dedbeaunay, AKA Raymond Crawford-Tand, is a transwoman who raped children.
Sex Offender Registry Board.
117144190-1,
Lawrence Harris murdered his boyfriend in 2007 by hitting him over the head with a hammer and stabbing him 20 times in a bus terminal parking garage after his boyfriend broke up with him. He appealled his conviction, arguing that his confession to law enforcement was not voluntary. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Harris claims to suffer from gender identity disorder. Dr. DiCataldo testified that, at the time of the killing, the defendant suffered from a mental impairment, namely, borderline personality disorder. In Dr. DiCataldo’s opinion, this mental impairment caused “a substantial impairment in [the defendant’s] behavior and his thought process” on the night of the killing. He explained that the impairment could have interfered with the defendant’s ability to form the requisite intent for murder and with the ability to make a calculated, premeditated decision to act.Dr. DiCataldo explained that he based his opinion on the defendant’s fear, real or imagined, of abandonment; conflicted and stormy interpersonal relationships, characterized by quick infatuation; profound identity disturbance resulting from his gender identity issues; and problems with modulating and controlling anger. Dr. DiCataldo testified that the defendant’s mental impairment explained his “overreaction” to the victim’s decision to leave him.

I, too, am frustrated by the superficial support thrown at Mr. Jenner. When I first heard about transgenderism, I was unsure of what to make of it. Nothing about my worldview specifically had anything against it, other than a vague wariness (which could easily just be a reaction to something unknown).

It was only when I started researching the evidence with the help of a biology major who had studied in a medical ethics class did I learn the truth of the matter: transgenderism is a dead end.

Unfortunately, that includes both metaphorical and literal uses of the phrase. As mentioned by others, transgenderism effectively ignores the true mental/emotional conflicts and compounds their effects be essentially offering a false cure. So, it is a dead end because there is no attempt at real healing. Unfortunately, this leads to the increase of suicide, hence the literal application.

Additionally, CG briefly mentioned the Third Gender from history. I will offer some enlightenment on this topic, thanks to a small research effort done by my wife. The Third Gender occured predominantly in several tribal settings, typically African or Native American. This social position was limited completely to a religious/shamanistic post and wasn’t acceptable outside of that role. So, there are two fallacies to using the historical Third Gender as a defense for Mr. Jenner’s, and by extension the trans community’s, case. One, there is no claim to a religious role. They are attempting to change their gender in a mainstream context. If they attempted to do so in the past, they would’ve become pariahs for violating common social customs. Two, more importantly, there is no claim for a Third Gender. In Jenner’s and other cases, the goal is clearly to transition from one gender to the other, not to straddle both.

The sooner we as a society undo this harmful social change, the sooner we can help these individuals toward healing and reduce the amount of suicides.

I think it’s safe to say that Caitlyn Jenner (at the age of 65) isn’t suddenly going to go on a violent crime spree aimed at women and children. Considering that the paparazzi follow her 24/7, the likelihood of any aberrant behavior would be close to 0%. But nice try to trying to demonize all transgender people — as if simply being transgender makes you a threat to society. One wonders how you sleep at night.

I am not demonizing Trans anything because their is no such thing. Jenner is a man. Most women on the planet know men are dangerous. Women generally to not walk alone at night. They check their drinks. That is how females live and stay alive. Jenner in a dress is still a man and women know this.

I sleep because I have locks on the doors. Discussing male violence against women and children does not demonize anyone. It brings clarity to point out that men rape and men kill. The victims are mostly women and children. BTW isn’t he being sued for killing a women a few months ago? driving? He seems so affected by it–dripping compassion and all. Yes he suffers so terribly. Female life is even cheaper in misogyny soaked LGBT land.

Now if there was ever proof you’re a sick and damaged individual, there it is. Anyone who spends that amount of time compiling questionable anecdotal evidence and then proposing it as a general rule is not just a ridiculous failure in academic rigour- but an undereducated imbecile.
From your writing skills and thought processes I think it’s clear you’re a marginal individual who has found a way of affirming yourself and feeling better about your existence by means of chaining yourself to this delusion that you’re not at the bottom of the pyramid. The more you find ‘demons’ to attack, the more that relieves your sense of inadequacy and failure. Why else would anyone waste such inordinate amounts of time copy/pasting information that in no way proves a point, but less a rule.
Interesting try pointing at my alleged misogyny- the problem with that is I respect women, I simply don’t respect idiotic ideas, or imbeciles who don’t know the difference between causality and incidence.

I didn’t spend too much time. These men make it easy. We could talk about the time the HRC and GLAAD spent putting women and children in danger–oh and the money they spend.

Your insults betray so much about the LGBT culture. People should notice the abuse that passes as social interaction. Do you think I survived a childhood at the mercy of people like you because I fell prey to their psychological abuse and manipulations? I have been inoculated and am immune. Yes sir you are dripping respect. Lets see all the insults, can’t carry on a coherent discussion without becoming abusive. You self inflated puffed up boor. The worst combination not smart enough to know when you are wrong and often wrong–its a life, somebody has to live.

Do you have no sense of self awareness sir? I laughed so hard that coffee came out my nose. Really you have gotten through life with so little self realization–the price of narcissism is nothing if not ironic.
No No not a misogynist, not a classist nor an elitist.

Complete sense of self-awareness. I simply saw the size and tone of your misleading and intentionally deceptive posts. There aren’t many conclusions left for people to draw. Either you know what you’re doing and you want to manipulate and scam people, or you’re not intelligent enough to understand what you’re doing.

Well I suspect if I was either Ms Bigot would have blocked me. So its a safe bet that I’m legit and bring another perspective and experience to the discussion. Scam people–sure I have a table on 10th doing 3 card Monty.

P.S. I’ve never hated women, on the contrary. I’ve had close relationships with women all my life. Don’t project your twisted problems on other people. You’re the one who seems to hate men. All your comments dente that in an obvious way.
Furthermore, don’t confuse mix up my analysis with your persecution complex and victimism. I can use your own comments to show how you fit into each one of the categories I ascribed to you.

I said men are violent often toward women. That is like saying the sun sets in the west– an unemotional fact.

Analysis? What analysis?

Do you mistake abusive for analysis?

Sir, you wish I played the victim. I just point out all the distortions and abuses of LGBT. And having spent nearly 30 years linked to that community and movement I am in a very good position to do so. It isn’t that I do not understand you it is that I do not believe you. That is the difference between us. The other difference is that I know you and you have no ability to manipulate me. The tactics don’t work.

Wait a second, first you say men in general commit violence against women, then you imply that’s an lgbt problem? Do you mean heteroexual men are excluded? You’re a joke, as are your specious arguments.
And just so we’re clear I don’t want to ‘manipulate’ you- I’m not the one going online putting out fraudulent information, that’s your schtick.

Bruce played the part of the father for 45 years, and emotionally suffered for decades — more than any of us could possibly imagine. He paid his dues. At 65, I think he has the right to finally live HIS life the way he wants to. He isn’t responsible for the hurt feelings of other adults (all of his children are grown up). All of his biological children support him 100%.

Wanting to identify as female because you feel you were born the wrong gender has nothing to with the “starvation and war and death of children”. What Bruce Jenner did had nothing whatsoever to do with your theoretical harmed children. Might be time to look up the definition of ‘hyperbole”. You don’t seem to be able to function without it. Everything that LGBT people do always seems to be some sort of assault on women and children. — Only in your fevered dreams. Get a life. You have no say in Caitlyn’s.

I never claimed to have nor want a say in Mr. Jenner’s pursuit of his fetish driven high in the public square. He is free to do as he pleases. He is not free nor are you to demand intelligent people find him anything more than a 60 something broken down dude that is. Correct, LGBT is a male rights movement, and proven to be the most misogynist movement on the landscape and the worst and most dangerous to women and children. Jenner was not exactly a great PR move btw.

Caitlyn’s choices will affect the biological adult children, grandchildren and other family members. The word “identity” sounds like it involves only one person but doesn’t it actually often involve many people, especially our families and loved ones? I agree with you that TS parents who made the mistake of having/raising children in the birth gender that they knew was wrong for them deserve to be applauded or encouraged for waiting until their children are adults before acting openly on the mis-identity. In that sense, I do view the patience as an act of love on her part. But, on the other hand, we have the unwitting children who were given a kind of tragic “bait and switch” with a very deep and personal part of their own identity. We also typically have a loss for the TS and extended family members of valuable downstream roles, for example the role of grandmother or grandfather. I know that some TS (and other) people reading this are going to ask “well, why can’t Caitlyn be a grandmother?” And I think this sort of discussion does overlap with related, broader questions of family roles in LGBTQ marriage. When we begin to speak about “identities” or “family roles” then we move into community or societal concerns; all grandmothers in a culture have some personal interest, however removed, in the idea or role or archetype therein of “grandmother.”

From what I know and what children of these men have report adult children need to keep their own children away from these men because the incident of molestation and abuse are very very high. You should read Denise Shick and Christine Beneveto and look up the wives blogs–these men should not being alone playing Granny with the kids. What you advise is dangerous and irresponsible sir. If their own wives and children say keep kids away–then I would heed there advice. Please do not promote children being sexually abused as a new political openness. Really sick sir, real damage to children. The patter about brain chemistry should be replaced with the kids real experience– hold this image–adult male pressing himself against his daughter and granddaughter grabbing breasts and panties. Not an act of love–

The connection between brain chemistry and any of our individual identities or sexualities remains speculative. But strongly-held individual thoughts and beliefs have meaning, especially if the goal is to help a person. Telling a TS person they are “delusional,” “mentally ill,” or somehow, by definition, “not transsexual” is not likely to help them, their families or loved ones. The ICD codes discussed above are primarily for the purpose of obtaining medical insurance payment, not to be confused with an ethical judgment, medical assessment or label. Even common insomnia qualifies as a diagnosable neuropsychiatric disorder with ICD code; no, you’re not necessarily crazy if you experience insomnia.

We accept the use of elective medical and surgical interventions for psychological and behavioral problems every day in the USA. They all have a risk-benefit profile. For example, treatments for chronic pain or GI surgery for some forms of obesity (including even for some bulimics discussed above). Suicide ideation is certainly more common when a person associates many of their problems with some apparently uncontrollable aspect of their corporeal body, but higher suicide rates is hardly an ethical reason to withhold medical treatment. Responsible TS programs require extensive counseling or other approaches before nominating surgical candidates.

I oppose the status quo TS surgical approach because it is essentially irreversible and unreliable for achieving a satisfactory outcome. Additionally, when media moguls or politicians sell the fantasy of wealthy celebrities like Chaz Bono or Caitlyn Jenner as idealized, glamor magazine outcomes, it adds to the misperception held by many TS that “the surgery” is a panacea. It is not. That creates more adjustment disappointment. Like other controversial plastic surgery approaches, if the FDA allows it to be promoted erroneously then it will likely become further abused. The idea of treating adolescent TS medico-surgically strikes me as child abuse. Some have suggested on the blog that Jenner may be abusing the surgery herself and has no intention of completing it; we can’t possibly know those answers and it is likely her approach will evolve as the treatment continues.

People who identify as TS are a part of our community. One discussion that Katy’s blog started is to ask what about the children of TS adults? Is the greater awareness being pushed out by media going to help or harm them on balance? Given the visceral reactions of even intelligent people to media coverage, is this really going to help the kids that Katy quotes above? On a positive side, will it encourage some younger TS think twice before marrying the “wrong” gender and having kids? Is there a problem with a completed TS (let’s say a XX female to XX male change to avoid the child sexual assault discussion) adopting and raising children who only know him as a “male?” Is it the same dilemma as two lesbian parents, i.e. no XY male influence by design, or is it different?

The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

Conclusions

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

You haven’t answered. Is your argument that you’re afraid for the wellbeing of people in the transgendered community, or are you saying they’re bad and dangerous people? Stop messing around and take responsibility for what you do and say.

What are you chortling about? I said men are violent and dangerous to women and children and Transgender women are men. What is unclear? The study confirmed it. But if you can’t parse my two sentences I do not hold out much hope that you can glean anything from the study. I’m not sure what exactly eludes you because it is rather simple. Transgender women–rape, murder, torture women and children at the same rate as all other violent males and LGBT supports this and demands they have easy access to victims.

“The problem is you don’t even understand the implication of your own statements.

If your assertion is that transgender women are dangerous because they’re biologically male, your underlying point is that all men are dangerous. And so you’re protesting men in general.”

Are other men trying to get into the ladies room and locker and changing room and exposes their erect penis as a civil right? No. Only these men. And LGBT supports this–male pleasure is a right.
I understand perfectly. You seem to be missing a whole world of information and reality. Women do not go out alone at night walking –because they could raped or killed by men. Women do not let strange men into their home when they knock on the door because . . . yep the violence thing again. But by some magic we are supposed to allow that massive boned man into women’s safe spaces because . . . why? Oh yes male sexual pleasure is a social justice cause and the fact that Transgender women, all men have (and I repeat this) raped, tortured, and murder 1000s of women and children means nothing.

Here is LGBT social justice in a nut shell–mens erotic arousal triggers need protection over the lives of women and children. How long is the center going to hold.

Women need to protection from men–they are a danger–not a single incident of violence against a man that “feels like a women’ (and what exactly does that feel like, I wonder–panties) by a woman has ever happened–ever. And these guys are screaming when they have a hang nail. But what you say is that his safety is an issue–what he might get the hang nail as rapes and chokes women–is that what you mean?

A mans safety is not my or any woman’s responsibility. We have children that need bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms–but no no no he needs to have a wank. Look, maybe you are used to that in mens room and it does not bother you. Me, my kids are not and we should not be forced by LGBT to have to look at strange men’s erect penis in women’s safe spaces. If you have been in the LGBT community longer than 10 seconds you know these late transitioners are disordered men and have a huge rate of violence. The only silver linning is a delicious irony that in the end a bunch of heterosexual men in Ladyface will bring the whole thing crashing down.

Dhejne et al. is a retrospective hazard analysis that shows XYmale-to-XYfemale TS, even after re-assignment surgery, have higher suicide rates compared to suicide rates for all non-TS controls. Notably, however, the data do not show comparable suicide increases for XXfemale-to-XXmale TS compared to female controls. This may be related to the ages of people studied; suicide generally is more common in younger women and much older men.

This paper demonstrates that sex reassignment is not a panacea for TS, however the data do not provide a valid reason to withhold the treatment from selected patients. What is missing? The suicide rates for an untreated TS cohort. The suicide rates for untreated TS might have been as high or much higher than those of the post-treatment group. There is no evidence that treatment leads to the higher suicide rates.

The same limitation of the study applies to the finding of increased arrests. I think there is good face validity to the idea that if a woman is given enough testosterone that the behavior becomes more aggressive, increasing violence and arrests. Some increased aggression is an expected side-effect and a very good reason not to abuse that drug. On the other hand, I know female XX to male TS who intentionally act “masculine,” including risk taking, without any medical treatment and such behavior also predisposes one to arrest.

Dhejne is a warning that surgery is not a reliable “fire and forget” option– compassion and psychiatric or therapeutic follow-up are important. It also underscores what was known previously of the high rates of suicide, depression and other psychological co-morbidities among TS people. What impact do you think that has on their families?

The women XX are a whole other mosaic of issues not really comparable except to serve LGBT ideology and LGBT ideology is not in the service to science, truth, humanity or intelligence. You did note the results on male violence.

Yes. Because there is a pathological ideology in LGBT that allows for tons of child abuse. Which is not to say everyone is an abuser but it saying the culture is abusive and has an infrastructure to protect abusers. Many have kept silent for a very long time. Some felt isolated, others wanted to move on. Recently it is coming out that there was a wide spread pattern.

So you mean to say that has to do with sexual orientation? How do you square that with heterosexual child abuse and heterosexual rape? You yourself seem to realize that women get abused HETEROsexually very often. What does that have to do with the LGBT community- and are you protesting heterosexual people for the abuses in question?

Sir I do not have to square anything I only have to describe it, document. There is a huge amount of abuse going on against children in LGBT. It is covered up. That has nothing to do with heterosexuals they are not the ones abusing COGs–the adults in LGBT are the ones doing that abuse. You make no sense–someone is abused in Denmark and you are trying to distract people to look at England–ugh what? Nice deflection attempt. When LGBT abuses children and covers it up it has everything to do with LGBT–

Nice work bringing together TERF nonsense with a strong anti-gay position. Your sources, the anonymous “Gallus” and the out lesbian Cathy Brennan, should read this and see exactly where their counterfactual bile leads.

Brilliant, well researched response. I’m afraid not everyone here is genuinely interested in the science, or even the psycho-social aspect of the discussion.
There seems to be a tendency for people to start with a conclusion and find a line in a study that supports that position.

. . . and for inquiring minds not part of LBGT here is a small slice of what are the lesbian feminists saying about Mr. Jenner?

I cleaned up some of language. M2T means man to Trans.
* Note: It seems as reported by lesbian feminists journalists Mr. Jenner was stealing his daughters delicates and masturbating into them—how womanly. Think about the COGS and then about LGBT reaction–Now what kind of terrible kid would tell on her Daddy? or worse–she is lying. These people do in fact shove their sexual release in their kids face. Imagine finding your underpants shoved back in the drawer with your fathers ejaculate on them. (Sorry Pink is this offends you but that’s what COGS live with). How this harms children is a discussion that is disgusting in and of it self. And it all needs to be said. Jenner is no victim and no hero.

A new COG? Me thinks on this their reach has exceeded their grasp and it will back fire.

What lesbian think about Mr.Jenner:

“If liberal men think Jenner is so hot, let’s see them date him. Or is “she” a lesbian and *we’re* expected to date him? UGH, never. Or maybe some straight woman who enjoys slumming as a “lesbian” will date him. Jazzy Jennings is in shock over his “no dates” status.

And:
“Men created this ridiculous, pornsick fantasy of femininity that has nothing to do with most women’s lives. Now some of the big crybabies feel unfairly excluded from the public, glamorous side of the lie they created. M2T like Jenner don’t demand access to care work or underpaid feminized labor because they don’t do any. They’re only interested in the hypersexualized illusion. They want to act out their fetish in the spotlight while women praise their courage and keep doing all the unappreciated shit work behind the scenes. Just like always. The balls on some people, huh?
M2T can have all the modeling, all the beauty pageants, and most importantly all the porn and prostitution. Every bit of it. Leave real women alone to contribute to society as we always have.”

What lesbians think:

“This cover literally nauseates me. is it the fact that it’s charged with whopping amounts of misogyny and looks like a warning/standard (same thing) for women or just the simple fact that at a pure visual level, it looks horrendously unnatural? i don’t like thinking about it. jesus christ this is disgusting. i never thought i’d feel genuine sympathy for any kardashians, but here we are. first he steals their clothing and now this? they’re the heroes, not him! lena dunham creates a tv show and prances around in her underwear and she’s The Ultimate Oppressor (TM) but autojennerphile fetishizes his own daughters and kills a woman with his car and is suddenly a brave hero? this is actually the state of things. ten years ago this wouldn’t be an issue. it is a very bad time to be a woman. as an aside, the political implications of this cover are probably deliberate which just makes it worse. this is designed to appeal to us. women are targeted by this #@*ing atrocity and we are supposed to sympathize with his “plight” of being a rich powerful white male and aim for his standard of living which most women will never have. cool. if any of us–any woman, as a matter of fact, regardless of power– tried this shit, we’d be dead in the water. this charade is an active celebration of a male doing what would literally get women killed by other males.”

and they said:

“This photo, this whole bull “oh she’s beautiful/brave/inspiring!” tsumami of fawning, vomit inducing idiocy is the very epitome of “triggering” for me. I need to go and lie down in a dark room..or scream out of the window. What we are seeing in that photo shoot (in the whole damn Jenner horror parade) is an old man’s sex fantasy of being lauded as a beautiful hot young chick. It is repulsive. He is repulsive. “Woman” is just a costume to these men. A sweaty, pornified, wank fantasy. And I hear that on Twitter a bot has been introduced that “corrects” the “misgendering” of “Caitlyn”… We are living through a dystopian nightmare. SOMEONE MAKE IT STOP”

And there you have it. Take away lesbians are not signing on and they sure as rain will not be partnering with him. He is all yours boys—but he does not like boys—ut oh, there’s the rub.

You know what, I think you should maybe try to speak directly to Katy and her husband. It seems like you’re working through something and maybe talking about it with empathic people could help. Katy and I don’t agree on a lot from a political perspective, but we do have in common a sense of family and community.
I have a feeling she’d be happy to welcome you into her community and help get you into a better, more positive place emotionally.
It seems to me you’re very hurt by something, and whatever I’ve said or am saying isn’t helping. So anyway, my apologies if I compounded your pain, and I wish you the best.

I think Katy and I and others share a commitment to ensure that COGs are heard and that going into the future children’s’ basic human rights are protected (not something LGBT is in support of). What people like you need to do is to accept that COGs are telling the truth. Stop deflecting and covering and making excuses–sorry Jenner does not have the right to have a wank in his daughters panties. Do you any idea how much HRC and GLAAD and Singer will be paying to shut those kids up. They are not cheap those people.

Sooner or later what we are saying will be accepted and common knowledge. The social experiment will be a fail. If I were you I would want to have an honest input and be on the “right side of history”. I suspect that neither one of us has any idea how big this is going to get but all indications suggest a Tsunami of kids. I am in a very positive place for me not so much so for people who would like to claim that for children growing up in LGBT is just like Leave To Beaver.

If you look through your comments you’ll see you’re not in that positive a place. Whatever happened to you growing up is still at the forefront of your mind in a way that seems to propel you in a negative direction.
There’s nothing that happened in my youth, for example, that I feel the need to ‘right’ by going on a crusade.
The right side of history is about making sure each one of us does everything we can to make a positive contribution to the world. We do that best by being constructive.
You can do and think and campaign for anything you like, but when that crosses into an obsessive cycle where the facts don’t matter so much anymore, then danger arises.

My place is very positive–gas-light, flickering again. There is very little positive about adults stripping children of their human rights, using them as props in some fake life they want to project to the public. There is no dressing that up. The direction is to accurately counter all the layers of distortions, control and abuse that passes as normal in LGBT land. And to expose the lies told in the service of adults.

I am doing something positive by being part of an entire movement of adult children of LGBT who are speaking out for the rights of children. And by putting our experience out there so all the nice admiring progressives who have no real clue beyond the crafted media image and one same sex brush with sex back in high school or college. I feel like we are gathering really positive energy and people. In is a wide and open discussing taking place between really diverse people–it covers the adults invasive sexual issues we grew up with. We talk about revelations; we all have remnants of a kind of Stockholm syndrome–so much so that even we are surprised when we agree that maybe the ignorant Christian red neck is more spot on just on gut instinct about what goes on in Same Sex homes, than the sociology professor who is invested in keeping the lies supported. One of the others joked that shortly Parental inflicted trauma induced Homophobia maybe a real condition in future that the children of same sex homes suffer. Maybe we will add pages to the DSM traumatic stress of children forced to live and serve in the service of LGBT ideology. I and I think all of us are very careful with facts–document, document, document. Your youth was not in LGBT and role playing so nobody noticed the deep and damaging disfunction that passes as normal. I mean look at what is defended. I think you and I know the larger truth–and so do many others and they defend it and demand kids–that dog don’t hunt soon.

My dear,
There’s nothing positive in letting a traumatic experience define your life. I promise you there’s nothing gaslight about me saying that. Ideally people can work through whatever happened to them.
When I refer to the facts issue, what I mean is you can’t disregard 9 out of 10 studies, say they’re all wrong, that science is wrong- and then say there’s one study that’s correct because it reinforces the ideas you already had.
That makes anyone reading what you say think, ‘oh, so she doesn’t believe in science unless it happens to agree with her position.’ It’s a bit of a conspiracy theory mindset.
And then there was your mention of the suicide rate study for transgendered individuals. It really had nothing to do with anything you were saying, but you threw it in there for some reason. By doing that it seems you’re looking for anything negative you can find to associate to the people in question. A suicide rate in any particular group doesn’t mean those people are bad. People in the medical industry and farm workers are in the top three of the highest suicide rates per profession. The only thing that means is they’re highly stressed.

What you are talking about is I believe called confirmation bias. There is no science to support Transgender. None. It is an ideology put forth by fetish driven heterosexual men and supported by LGBT because they need white man money and they are running out of popular pity and need to up their victim currency. In the case of children I would be as scared as hell if I were you because it looks like a very dramatic and homophobic form of gender bias that makes reparative therapy look mild. Make no mistake sir those are little gay boys that are being told they are girls. And LGBT supports this. Because (and I do like the irony) it is now being run by heterosexual men in dresses and Ladyface.

You can read Michael Bailey–“The Man That Would Be Queen” or the bioethics studies of Alice Dregar–both of whom who physically threatened by LGBT activist so extensibly that the FBI has entire files–very quick and easy reads. I mention the suicide rate because suicide is used as tactic to leverage pity, guilt or shame from the general population. The trans activist are all over it–remember that kid who stepped in front of a truck in Ohio. The suicide note: “change the world” which the police just reported to actually have been written and posted 2 hours after he died.

Another sound bite “change the world” right up there with “it gets better”. LBGT is rhetoric is filled with male abusive narcissistic manipulations that pass as political discourse. Simply put “good bye cruel world and you’ll be sorry when I am gone” is an intrenched political manipulation used by LGBT to get other people to “believe”. These arguments are scripted. The political machine loves to use other peoples children death. It is cynical and effective. That is why I mention suicide so people recognize LBGT really shameless manipulations. They do not have to believe me all they have to do is have 3 exchanges and they know what I know and when when they are being scammed. I would go out on a limb and say Tran suicide rate is constant to the high rate of white middle aged heterosexual men because they are white middle aged heterosexual men and not women. I threw it in to say it first and cut that cut guy off at the pass before he started trawling for pity. You might read the below or not–we both know these guys are not women.
Bailey, J. Michael.

“So you mean gender dysphoria ‘doesn’t exist’? I’m not sure you can get that theory through reasonable people.”

That is one of the rhetorical tropes I mentioned in a long comment I did on LBGT Gas-lighting tactics. It is called–“so what you are saying is. .. or are you saying.” I am saying very clearly Jenner is a man. He pleasure himself in lady face. It is compulsive. Is he depressed about? I would be? But he is a porn soaked sick man so I have no idea.

You just deflectd my qustion. Asking you to clarify isn’t gas-lighting. My question was, and I repeat, are you saying gender dysphoria doesn’t exist? Why don’t you just answer honestly what your opinion is instead of trying to dance around issues? What’s wrong with being straightforward about what you think?

You asked what I think about gender dysphoria–I do not think about “gender dysphoria” because I do not care about male disorders–I’m not looking up problems with the prostate or ED either. For you dolling I go out of my way. It is a citation is the DSM V 2014 and so is autogyniphilia–do they exist? They are on the printed page. So, it depends on your definition of “exists” the dictionary defines “gryphon” but no such animal exists. The DSM used to have all kinds of entries for things that no longer exist. The probing question is do I care about disordered men that are dangerous to women and and children–no I do not. They do not get the milk of my human kindness which is in rather short supply for dangerous men.

According to DSM V it has existed since the new edition in 2014 and prior to that it was a disorder. Yep ideology is a such a friend to science.

Sex is a biological reality and immutable. Gender is a social or cultural construct. Given that different cultures have different gender expectations and nuance. Let’s just say some people belong to a culture that does not have a notion of gender and only recognizes biological sex . That is within their rights. So Mr. Jenner is still a fetish driven man.

Pink, you love that “so are you saying” trope. ” So you don’t genuinely care about the science?” Science where is there science? That is not science anyway.

I do not care about a 65 year old mans sexual arousal triggers. I do not care if he ever ejaculates again. That is not science my friend that is male sexual pleasure–men want to make their pleasure a civil rights issue or call it “science”. Yes let elevate the wank- What next it is a religious object?

Why are you deflecting and changing the subject? I didn’t ask you about masturbation or anything else along those lines. I asked you if you genuinely believe gender dysphoria does not exist.
I’m trying to understand what your position is and the reasoning behind it.
I don’t think there’s any disagreement in the scientific field that gender dysphoria exists.

I think that you should realise that to some, facts have no place in their world-view. They are impervious to them.

Regarding autogynephilia…
“Now the main competing theory is AGP (AutoGynePhilia) theory, a theory based in the Freudian concept that every single human motivation is sexual in nature. In AGP theory, the early transitioners are really gay boys who want to have sex with straight men. The late transitioners have a paraphilia, a fetish, that makes them want to have female bodies based on misdirected male sexual urges (Autogynephilia). This last is associated with talents for the military, computer science, or the creative arts for reasons unknown, and the neurological evidence is swept under the carpet as an irrelevant, unexplained phenomenon based on dubious evidence. As for FtoMs, they’re all inexplicable and may not even exist. Any testimony by any TS women which contradicts this is a lie, and they must all be pathological liars as so many of them contradict it.

All men are heterosexual, gay, or liars too, bisexuality doesn’t exist in men, those who say they’re bisexual are gay. Except in transsexuals, where those claiming to be bisexual have to actually be non-gay to make it all work. And women are all bisexual. The evidence that many late transitioning women end up being androphillic is ignored as an unexplained phenomenon, or maybe they’re just lying.”

Here’s what Blanchard himself wrote about the AGP conjecture in Origins of the Concept of Autogynephilia

“Theoretical statements involving autogynephilia are a rather different matter. I have, at one time or another, advanced several of these, for example:

1. All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual (erotically aroused by other males) are instead autogynephilic (erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as females).

2. Autogynephilia does not occur in women, that is, biological females are not sexually aroused by the simple thought of possessing breasts or vulvas.

3. The desire of some autogynephilic males for sex reassignment surgery represents a form of bonding to the love-object and is analogous to the desire of heterosexual men to marry wives and the desire of homosexual men to establish permanent relationships with male partners.

4. Autogynephilia is a misdirected type of heterosexual impulse, which arises in association with normal heterosexuality but also competes with it.

5. Autogynephilia is simply one example of a larger class of sexual variations that result from developmental errors of erotic target localization.
…
All or none of the foregoing propositions may be true, false, or something in between. Their accuracy is an empirical question that can be resolved only by further research. ”

The only “further research” on it has been Moser’s work:

“Autogynephilia, an erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, has been described as a sexual interest of some male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs); the term has not been applied to natal women. To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire which included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital, 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Using a more rigorous definition of “frequent” arousal to multiple items, 28% would be classified as autogynephilic. The implications of these findings are discussed concerning the sexuality of women and the meaning of autogynephilia for MTFs.”

Autogynephilia in Women. Moser, C. Journal of Homosexuality

The nonexistent evidenciary basis for the AGP conjectures was mentioned in
“Should Transvestic Fetishism Be Classified in DSM 5? Recommendations from the WPATH Consensus Process for Revision of the Diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism”. International Journal of Transgenderism 12 (4): 189.
“Second Response of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to the Proposed Revision of the Diagnosis of Transvestic Disorder forDSM5″. International Journal of Transgenderism 13: 9

More from Blanchard:
” A few studies on homosexual males (19)(20) raise the possibility that transsexualism might, at the neuroanatomic level, literally represent a type of intersexuality.
Such a conclusion would certainly change the complexion of the nosological debate. One might then ask who is more delusional – the transsexuals who claim they are “women trapped in men’s bodies” or the person who continues to insist they are not. At present, however, the empirical data are lacking to decide this matter one way or the other.
-The case for and against publicly funded transsexual surgery
Ray Blanchard, Ph.D Psychiatric Rounds 2000 V4 Issue 2

I’m going to say something that might not lie well with any side of the debate, but I’m inclined to defend Dr. Blanchard with the limited information I have and I’d really like to know his modern views, as opposed to the kind of retelling you quote in the first part of your message.

Medical science can not develop properly if overly constrained by moral views on either side. Ethics have a place in what one does to test subjects but not in what conclusions one draws from evidence. And that’s all that Dr.Blanchard originally did. His work, while deeply imperfect (but is there such thing as perfection in a pioneering scientific field?), was to help advance understanding of dysphoria at that level – and would need very much further correction and refinement.

What happened instead is that Michael Bailey came along and chose to sensationalize the theory.

The bigtime omission seems to be the kind of cultural influences that contribute to “autogynephilia” in both trans women and natal females. Moser’s work is sort of a no-brainer for anyone who encountered a few “kinky” natal women – but if one looks a wee bit deeper, one finds that “fetishization of one’s external femininity” is actually promoted to women by existing culture. This in itself is a neutral observation, not “good” or “bad”, it’s just there, open a women’s magazine to see it.

But this is not some sort of big heretical fatal flaw, it’s just a flaw. Scientists develop theories, discover flaws, go on to new theories. But some theories are made into ideological weapons.

I don’t wish to attack Blanchard, nor even the enfant terrible and professional troll, Bailey. The AGP conjecture is poorly evidenced, that’s all.

If something is true, then it doesn’t matter that a publicity-seeking mountebank such as Dr Oz says it – it’s still true. If something is false, then it doesn’t matter if an eminent and respected scientist says it, it’s still false.

If there is an ethical issue, it’s that scientists should consider raising the bar, the standard of proof required, a little – not a lot – when considering propositions that are certain to be weaponised. But I could live with it if the bar was not raised, as there are dangers in doing so.

My major concern is the perceived tendency by some not to raise it, but to lower it. Rassenwissenschaft is the perfect example of that. “Drapatomania” likewise, even “Hysteria”.

I personally have been attacked (only in words) for giving my opinion of the consequences of observed fact when those opinions have been “harmful to the cause”. I’ve been asked why I do the things I do, say the things I say, when such work has been weaponised by others – and that this weaponisation is predictable, even inevitable.

All I can say in reply is that Reality wins in the end. I go where the evidence takes me, not trying to coerce it into something that would support what I’d prefer to be the case. I even reserve the right to change my opinion as better evidence comes in. I also reserve the right to be human, and make mistakes.

I also try – with mixed success – to disarm much of the harm, by explaining in detail, with disclaimers. Thus male and female brains do differ, anatomically. But it’s multi-variant, statistical, with overlap, individuals vary, so using it as an excuse for oppression is as insane as rejecting a 6′ 4″ woman from a job requiring a tall person while accepting a 5′ 0″ male because “women are shorter than men”.

Women indeed *are* shorter than men, statistically. But so what?

Male and female brains differ, statistically. But that’s only crucial when it comes to Intersex people, and making sure we don’t screw up by assigning them the wrong sex. OK, and with Trans people too.

As here:

Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth by Reiner and Gearhart, N Engl J Med. 2004 January 22; 350(4): 333–341.
RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
CONCLUSIONS Routine neonatal assignment of genetic males to female sex because of severe phallic inadequacy can result in unpredictable sexual identification. Clinical interventions in such children should be reexamined in the light of these findings.

This would be just an obscure academic argument – except it’s been weaponised on the pages of the New York Times! Rippon makes a plausible case, but one contradicted by the reality of Intersex (and trans) people’s experience. While the comparatively minor differences have historically been grotesquely exaggerated into “biological essentialism” and used as a pretext to oppress women, they still exist, and to deny them provides an even more noxious pretext to not just oppress, but persecute IS and Trans people.

Just look at some of the comments here to see the depths of malice involved. People see a great injustice – one that has even seen women denied the vote in living memory – they see all the places in the world where females are treated as livestock or worse – so of course they see anything that would be misused to support that as EVIL.

Reality wins in the end though. While the “infinite neuroplasticity” hypothesis is definitely useful from a Feminist viewpoint, it’s not completely true. There are limits to it.

If one were to believe the “blank slate” idea, then indeed, Intersex kids could be assigned the sex of greatest convenience without harm. Transsexuality would be a psychiatric, not a physiological issue. As the “blank slate” hypothesis is an Article of Faith to Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, of course they support the AGP conjecture, and much else, as long as it denigrates and defames Trans and Intersex people. Just look at Greer’s writings to see how the latter are viewed.

Oh, more about Dr.Blanchard’s cultural limitations – he says he never observed autoandrophilia. Well, I have, and the reason he has not is (1) because he is looking at clinical samples while autoandrophilia is usually not clinical, (2) because he is limited to English-language Western culture.

I could introduce him to more than one natal woman, of various orientations but usually not exclusively lesbian, who experience sexual arousal from imagining themselves as male. In fact I know some such women in pairs with each other describing themselves as gay men. They are in the slash fandom in Russia. They have some meet-ups, perhaps Dr.Blanchard should travel to one.

Everyday a Transgender kills, rapes or tortures someone. And LGBT keeps it very very quiet. This Man isn’t on the cover of VF–why not? What bigotry.

Long story short, Women, human females with XX chromosomes would not provide Transgender woman (him a man) with the sexual pleasure he demanded so she stabbed someone and killed them. Quick let them in the bathroom with you six year old daughter. Hurry don’t be a bigot–Mr. O’Boyle supports love and male rights to all sexual pleasure–“it puts the lotion on . . .”

“Police said Eric Schriber, 39, was stabbed to death after a New Year’s Eve gathering and subsequent early morning confrontation at a home on England Road.

According to police and witnesses there was some kind of altercation between Matthew “Maddie” Smith, 25, and Schriber leading up to Smith stabbing Schriber multiple times in the neck.

Smith was born male, but is transgender and now identifies as Maddie.

Smith took the stand on Thursday in her own defense.

“He was going around demanding affection from several women at the party,” Smith said.

In this particular instance, the man Schriber was aggressive to women, including a certain trans woman. It is true, perhaps, that the reason it was the trans woman who finally resorted to violence in self defence was because she did not live through female socialization in childhood. But it’s funny how those allegedly angry at male sexual violence go ahead and condemn someone who killed the perpetrator of such violence.

And your source for the statistic? Some racy TERF site or some racy fundie site? You are a perfect example of how the two become indistinguishable, except the TERFs love lesbian coparenting while you don’t.

“TERF” is an acronym for “trans exclusionary radical feminist”. They themselves consider it to be a slur, which it may well be for all I care.

They claim to defend rights of women, yet only care for male violence when the males happen to be trans women – as evidenced here with that case when a chav pig got somewhat more than his dues from a trans woman. They do have some valid theoretical points but these are overshadowed by hate propaganda, often veering into outright hate of gays even when they pretend to be pro-GL (“IMHO” does not even pretend). The TERF classic is Janice Raymond, who participated in removal of trans health care from Medicaid in 1980 (recently reversed), and their current most mainstream leader Sheila Jeffreys, whose article condemning the moderate UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and oging over the parliamentary debate fawns over the fundie Lord Tebbit in such a way that I’d bet she likes the gent, though she identifies as lesbian.

Their general thinking is in the collectivist tradition of Catharine McKinnon. Their main accusation to trans women tends to be “special snowflake”, a lack of class consciousness so.

Regarding TS violence against women and children, vs. non TS male violence (assuming, the stats are static in both populations- and why wouldn’t they be?): nature provided us the ability to determine threats based upon visual clues and behavior, such as appearance and behavior that informs the possible prey/victim that the predator is nearby. TS (M to F) are wolves in sheep’s clothing, for which no evolutionary response is available since this man-made creation did not co-evolve with females or their offspring along an evolutionary timeline, or within a successful evolutionary framework, required for the prey/victims to develop successful defenses.

We see this unfortunate unnatural outcome in a deer population still trying to negotiate the relatively new perils of vehicles. The splat/hood ornament outcome usually wins out.

Keep distorting nature. It has a ‘funny’ way of rebounding right back onto its greatest detractors/offenders.

Source for the statistic ramelik? See Dhejne et al. 2011, PLOSOne, DOI 10.371. (link posted here already by another blogger). That study is the largest and longest running follow-up of TS people ever published to my knowledge. It includes almost every sex-reassigned TS treated in the nation of Sweden, many of them immigrants from across Europe and Russia, during a period of 30 years.

Do you have a better source? It doesn’t require any science, let alone rocket science, you just count up the police reports and apply basic math.

All those funny acronyms you posted and your rant about lesbians are revealing. What were you saying earlier about “reason?”

My rant was about one specific lady who claims to be a lesbian, not lesbians in general. That particular group is a tiny minority of lesbians. Most lesbians are either non-political or mainstream feminist; in fact a good few of them, on personal experience, appreciate the need for protecting non-conforming individuals from collectivist wrath of any kind.

The specific stats I doubted involve “thousands” etc. I do not generally doubt the Dhejne conclusion that the stat is generally the same as for non-trans males; any reduction because of trans specifics would be well compensated by an increased lure for material gain to pay for the treatment, so I’d expect as much. It’s just not enough to pin trans people as some sort of especially violent group.

“Keep distorting nature. It has a ‘funny’ way of rebounding right back onto its greatest detractors/offenders.”

Like, on all of us present here who would naturally not be able to communicate over vast distances?

Technology has made great strides in freeing up the individual, body and mind alike, from natural constraints. Transgender treatment is nothing special in that regard.

If you want a natural lifestyle backed by a strict law that was forged in a really demanding natural environment, join fundamentalist Muslims. They do accept converts. And their sharia law – I’m saying this as an opponent of theirs – is not just what a guy dreamed up in the 7th century! Mohammed was no simple guy, he was an able military commander and empire builder. Sharia was developed exactly as a coherent way of social survival under natural constraints. Nearly everything that we see there as bad and aggressive has come out of this – including their awful treatment of women, of course. (That treatment is designed specifically to keep an army expanding and satisfied while avoiding internal pressure.)

Your choice so. “Natural” virtual enslavement under a hijab in a harem – or “unnatural” freedom, which also involves recognizing similar freedom of other people. Including those who happen to be trans.

We agree then ramelik. Male XY-to female TS violate at rates comparable to XY males in general. In fact, there is almost a monotonic relationship between masculinity and androgen levels of many natural human variants with violent crime stats. Not a strict dependence but a remarkable trend.

Welcome to the land of bigots.

Sometime, if your willing, it would be great to hear your take on what happened in Ireland?

There’s a lot of stuff that happened in Ireland. Don’t get me started on the Bank Guarantee!

You probably mean the marriage referendum. Well, what happened is first and foremost the right way to do it if it is done at all. While I would prefer if it went the other way, I still am, as a naturalized citizen, quite proud that no court and no parliament could dictate to the people here. I am horrified by the US level of judicial activism (as well as many other things US, what with all the wars). And it seems to have all started with Dred Scott, that judgement which created such a thing as federal citizenship…

As to why the vote went that way, Ireland is experiencing a backlash from decades of Roman Catholic repression. And so any calls to vote No were seen in that light. Many people don’t want a society run by a church, and they therefore believe that same-sex relationships should be seen as fully equal in status.

Because it was done the right way, by referendum not diktat, the government had to campaign and to make certain promises. I am now interested in tracking these promises – such as that there would be no effect on primary schools and no constitutional right to commercial surrogacy. In fact, just a few hours ago I met with a TD (member of parliament) and, among other things, asked him to consider slapping a prohibition on using commercial surrogacy anywhere in the world. There is a bill in the works that slaps one on using the services of a prostitute anywhere in the world, and it’s a pretty close thing so banning them together would be logical.

No sir women counted the bodies and the names of victims–it all documented. All available on line in fact. Found in public court and prison records–do some research. MERF is better–Male Exclusionary Radical Feminists, we are speaking of men after all. Let me see your logic–Not wanting a man in a dress in your daughters locker room, dorm room, hospital room or women’s shelter is so radical. Women not wanting to get raped and killed by men such a civil rights violation against men. Poor men.

No, I am not doing my own detailed research to make or break a number that I think is phony, the burden of proof is on those who give this number.

Though I suspect it will probably work, but in a context that destroys your argument. 0.3 percent of Americans identify as transgender, so if trans people commit crimes at the same rate as other people, they have committed 0.3 percent of the crimes. Whatever the exact dynamic I would suspect that trans women (MtF) commit more than FtM simply because there are more of them. Therefore I would place a guesstimate of percentage of crimes committed by trans women to the entire amount of the same type of crime as 0.2 percent.

Therefore, if, in total, in whatever area (provided it’s within “the West” and and does not include areas of war *) you are covering, 500,000 women and children were killed, maimed, and tortured i the 5 year period, then it is likely that 1000 of them were indeed killed, maimed and tortured by trans women. Which, of course, proves nothing.

* I added this limitation because of the copious amount of war violence and Third World violence. Very little of that is perpetrated by trans women because they are in no position to perpetrate it, not because they are somehow better.

Oh Damn Ram- your response to one of my comments is so disappointing, and after you showed such promise!

I more than adequately responded to the Luddite claims, so we’ll let your latest very poor analogy stand and speak for itself.

Your Sharia restatement of my position is a very dishonestly constructed strawman. There is nothing natural about radical Islam as expressed via their Sharia, as is readily evidenced by the monumental failure of those oppressed societies throughout the world. Sharia, same as for communism and other radical socialist ideologies, provide very observable examples of those populations failure to thrive. The slavery inherent of Sharia oppression is no more beneficial to Man than was or is any other enslavement of humans. Disordered sexual behavior is also a form of enslavement, incidentally.

Please, you have not been disrespected here- certainly not by me. Give my comments all the same due respect as I do yours. It is better to ignore them than to distort them and then make a very transparent and feeble attempt at debating your own incredible distortion of my fact-based statements.

If you cant be honest about your oppositions position or statements, why would be believe or trust anything you claim?

I did indeed miss your more thoughtful comments at the time, sorry – responded since.

As for Sharia, however, I’m not sure what failure you are talking about. They’re actually thriving in many places and severe physical force is the only thing that seems to stop them. For example, in Syria, President Assad had to use an increasingly high amount of violence to keep them at bay. This violence was seen by the US and some European countries as criminal. The Islamists cleverly created “democratic” front organizations which got Western financial and material support, pushing Assad back and funneling resources into ISIS. The result – a mammoth that is now very hard to defeat.

One can also take a look at Somalia. When I got interested in that I read a Somali forum and it was a very enlightening experience. They were angry there at all sort of “governments” and “warlords” – but Sharia was just natural to them. The Union of Islamic Courts won there exactly because that structure was seen as natural. Then, facing military opposition, it hardened into al-Shabaab.

They are really good at “natural”. They exploit it for all it’s worth. A freedom-based and technology-enabled alternative, caring for practical and free as opposed to natural, is the only way the West can present a danger to them in my view. They can not be defeated “man to man”.

Look at the best recent moment of the West, winning the Cold War. I’ve been there, growing up in Moscow, I know how it worked. The win was economic and ideological. The West had a better technological environment and it pumped out a coherent message of a lifestyle of individual freedom, backed by flashy gadgets from blue jeans to cassette players to personal computers. And the rigid Red society crumbled, losing its young to that stuff.

Exactly right ramendik. The XY male-to-female TS population commits violent crimes at the same rate as does the XY male heterosexual population. But if this story had been the common-variety XY male who went berserk on some drunk guy for assaulting his wife and the other ladies at a New Year’s party, however, it might not have made the “salacious TV ratings” cut for the local N. KY news….

Yep and then they defend killers rapist, molesters because that is what “real women do” “Laverne Cox’s video has been widely promoted as “Laverne Cox Reads A Letter From A Transwoman Currently In Prison”, but this isn’t the first publicized “letter” from Synthia China Blast, born Luis Morales.

In 2004 Synthia China Blast emulated the New York Zodiac Killer Heriberto Seda, by sending a typewritten letter to the NY Daily News, titled “This is the voice of the Zodiac Killer’s Wife”. In the letter the sex-offender and child-killer expressed his desire to “become a woman” and “marry” the serial killer, who was serving his 235-year sentence in the same facility. “If I was a real woman I could bring about little future serial killers to terrorize NYC like my husband did. How [New Yorkers] would of loathed the Zodiac Children,” Blast wrote.

Out of all the causes in the entire world that could have been championed, the OITNB star Laverne Cox asks that you lend your support to a deranged, sadistic, life-extinguishing person who raped and murdered little Ebony Nicole Williams, then dumped her lifeless body off a highway underpass, later returning to burn her corpse.

Cox is joined in this action by the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a transgender organization that supports incarcerated males who are serving sentences for the rape, murder, and sexual exploitation of children. The organization encourages transgender youth to write to these men, including pedophile Lewis Stevens who represents the Sylvia Rivera Law Project as “Lennea Elizabeth Stevens” in a blog on their website. Stevens is incarcerated for possessing a collection of videos of children being raped.” Gender Trender

It’s the other way around. The SRLP did their own research, which I think led them to conclude Blast was framed (at least that;s what I understood). Then Cox basically gave a celebrity signature without redoing the research; a signature she later retracted.

I am in no position to judge whether the SRLP research was correct or even how much of it they did at all (did they just trust Blast’s statement to the court or something deeper was done).

Do you mean like killer, rapist, Christians, who happen to be part of the same ideological group as you?Christians being the number one abusers and molesters in society? How do you suggest we exclude your abusive crowd from society?

MR: Thanks for the perspective on Ireland– very interesting. Also, apologies for misspelling your name above— no revision function to fix it.

Yeah, many think the USA is on it’s way to re-discovering the delights of a large centralized, socialist oligarchy. But, fortunately, many Americans also still prefer a democratic republic. Based on SCOTUS history, I’m sure that those three or four people in black robes and cloister can’t possibly lead us astray…

Let’s ground-truth a couple of questionable statements so far left undusted:

1. ‘…Irelands reaction against a repressive Catholic Church’, to paraphrase. Yeah, not so much there. While the Irish reaction is primarily aimed against the Church (or, rather, the sins of churchmen), it is also leveled against any mainstream structure, including capitalism (no more Celtic Tiger-heh?) that successfully brought Ireland out of their pagan and otherwise enslaved ‘dark ages’. The first wrong premise is that Catholicism was/is repressive. This is debatable, it is not a foregone conclusion, as in ‘the science is definitely not settled’ here. A better (truer) statement might ask how Catholicism affected Ireland (this way we don’t make any unsubstantiated conclusions regarding ‘repression’). Lets also not forget that only~ 60% of the population voted, of which ~ 60% voted for SSM. My math gets that at ~ 1/3 of the total population (may not be perfectly accurate within a few points).

2. ‘..horrified…..by US….what with all the wars…’, to paraphrase. I find this statement particularly interesting given Europe’s historic proclivity for war, and especially given the historic and prolonged “troubles” associated with Ireland’s [past] glorious history. Of course, western civilization is less warring/damaging, historically, than Asian, African or Islamic cultures and atheistic societies overall (any review of historic mortality statistics will readily reveal that truth). And, in particular, US wars, since WWII, have included the Korean conflict (hardly a bad thing for South Korea, yes?), Viet Nam (a very bad ideological/political ‘war’ for the US), a few minor skirmishes in the Caribbean and eastern bloc disputes, then the Iraq Desert Storm (bad? Not as far as Kuwait is concerned), Afghanistan (bad war- really?) and Iraq. I’ll give you the latest Iraq debacle for the sake of mercy- consider it a peace offering. Otherwise, both statements are highly debatable.

Other than that, we’re all good.

I must ask, though: historically, ever wonder what the western (free) world would look like today were it not for the US? And, when you’re done with that one: historically, ever wonder what the world would look like were it not for western civilization?

We probably should some idea of what to expect as we intentionally unravel our civilization.

What the world would look like today if the Washington boys got a nice beating from the Brits, you mean? Kinder and gentler, quite possibly. Compare the way slavery was abolished in the British Empire and in that beacon of freedom, the United States.

When listing wars you forgot Libya. And Panama. I’m only on about the recent ones anyway. As for modern Islamists, guess where they came from, hint – not really from the desert. The Soviet Union installed and supported a secular Communist regime in Afghanistan – not a great thing for sure, but then the US, through Pakistan, grew an Islamist resistance there basically from scratch. These are the guys that ultimately grew into the Taliban. A cure worse than the disease. Then the Americans went on to sorta-fight them by supporting the Karzai gang which is only slightly less Islamist and actually persecuted Christians. Perhaps they found nobody better to support, because the decent secular Afghanis allied with President Najibullah were defeated and driven out with a lot of American money involved.

And yes, the world would be much worse off without Western civilization – but the question is why. Surely not because of some war or other; all can do that. Thoiugh your statement “western civilization is less warring/damaging, historically, than Asian, African or Islamic cultures and atheistic societies overall” is simply wrong. First there was the global slave trade and the peak of colonialism (including what happened to the Native Americans); then the First World War; and after that, Hitler was a part of Western civilization, like it or not. Nazism was an internal, not external, disease, and “West” does not equal “Anglo-Saxon”.

And surely Western civilization is not superior because all minds were greater, in fact there were great scientists and philosophers across the world. No, it’s just that Western civilization happened to create the scene that allowed the Industrial Revolution and subsequent explosive technological development. It did so by recognizing the freedom of the individual, by freeing him – and then her, too – from a life of endless, monotonous subservience to social structures and alleged “nature”.

What you are doing in your statements is extremely strange. You are making social structures a divine gift of a faceless Nature – this is approaching Confucianism. The very Confucianism that led China, with its brilliant minds and strong technological potential (they got explosives first), to stagnation. You are transplanting Eastern thought to the West. In the West itself, even before Enlightenment, there was a strong individualistic line of thought. “Society” was not the source of anything. It was God, a person, and the system of relationships was about personal fidelity to a person – to a King, a baron, a lord…

Regarding Ireland, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by pagan dark ages, seeing as the place is predominantly Christian since the fourth century. Ireland didn’t *have* the dark ages you are talking about. Unfettered capitalism was never very popular here because its doctrine of absolute private property took a hard toll in the 19th century under British rule; a large sector of the forces that eventually won the country’s independence in 1922 were socialist. Yet at present the far left-wing parties only have a few people in the Dáil (parliament), and generally the place is not nearly as socialist as Scandinavia, and does not even have a comprehensive single-payer free medical service like its neighbour Britain. And Catholicism *here* was repressive and this is a simple fact – censorship and social rigidity were very obvious, it’s *not* just about the paedophile priests really. Honestly it looks like you don’t know very much about it, save perhaps for green beer on St.Paddy’s Day parades (and the beer is a US thing entirely, never seen on Irish streets, while parades of course are very prominent).

Are you really going to claim that, historically, Britain was more humane than the US? And, it’s from Ireland that you will make this claim?

Don’t believe propaganda about American ‘unusual’ cruelty to either its indigenous people (it was no worse than what any other cultures experienced with expansion and settlement- including the native tribes who regularly devoured each other/themselves) or its short-lived slave trade – so humanely imported into the colonies by our European brethren. That stinky pile you are trying to side step has already attached it’s odor to your adopted continents coattails! Let me know when either your native or adopted country (or any continental nation-state) has popularly elected it first black president – two terms. Let’s not also forget the origins of slavery (Africa), where it always was and still is practiced (as well as in Asia), or the rest of the worlds embrace of modern day slavery (‘white slavery’) – which brings us to the concerns regarding surrogacy expressed here at ATB. You lose credibility when you parrot the mantras of anti-American despots (many of whom, sadly, reside in the US while benefitting from her bounty).

You are still too deeply imbedded in your politics. Get your head out of the politics (hard for a Russian?), and get it into biology. Here it is, one more time, just for you: the science of biology encompasses not only the individual organism, but, the social systems that evolve to support that individual within the context of its existence, such as its reproduction needs (suitable mate), its offsprings needs (family), its community, its population and its species needs- which include its environmental needs and its social needs.

Can you now follow the vein that runs from the individual to the individuals society? Good. You have now arrived at the doorstep of western civilization. The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, further imbued by Christianity, gave the world the gift of western civilization. I’d like to keep it around quite a bit longer since it is that social structure that has afforded Man the greatest freedom in his history- both individually, and as a species.

Blast is in prison in Attica as a man for the murder of little girl and the burning of her corpse. He was not acquitted of murder and desecration of corpse. He burned the evidence of rape. I do not remember what was the final judgement about the semen found at the scene. But so nice of you to come to his defense and say women’s and girls lives are of no value because men “feel like women” and how often that “feeling” leads them to murder. Your defense of him just like Mr Lavern Cox coming out for a rapists and child killers rights proves the point. Cox only repositioned himself when there an outcry–he literally was okay before that with championing the cause of a man that raped killed and burned the body of a little girl. Yes Transgender women are such real women–

TS ‘women’ will be real women when they can ‘trans’ all of their XY chromosomes for XX chromosomes at the time of conception, because that is when the unique biology of sex (inherent in/of sex chromosomes) begins to differentiate male from female, and when the person naturally (from nature, not from man) develops functioning mammary structures, and fully developed and functioning female genitalia and reproductive organs. That is the definition of WOMAN.

And nothing less will ever make a male a female. And, any social ‘acceptance’ of anything less than a fully-functioning natural female is the worst form of misogyny. Women can no more be manufactured by Man than any other human being, including the oh-so lofty and superior male, can be so created. These are Franken-women. And, it is being promoted by practicing, by definition, misogynists.

Misogyny is intolerance, bigotry and hatred of the first order. It cannot be condoned.

So socially calling someone you do not believe to be a woman. a woman, is in your view a “highest form of misogyny”? Care to prove this statement? That’s like saying anyone dying their beard red to resemble a leprechaun is a form of hatred against us born red-beardies…

No, chromosomes do not define sex. They do heavily bias the odds of one or another sex developing, but are not definitive. 1 in 300 men don’t have 46,XY “male” chromosomes for example.

There are no girls who are born with “fully functioning female genitalia and reproductive organs”. Those usually develop later, at puberty, from the pre-pubescent non-functional structures usually (not always) present at birth.

Your description of other human beings as “Frankenwomen” is reminiscent of Mary Daly’s description in her work Gyn/Ecology:

“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring…

Of course I never said anything that might remotely mean that “lives of women and girls are of no value”. You learned the lessons in distortion of whatever people say very well – from the TERF of course. Yet I don’t think you will support two-mother families; they will 🙂

Societal rejection of trans people probably did play a role into pushing Blast into gangland life. The crime was a gang crime; Blast was subservient to the leaders of the gang; as far as I am aware these are undisputed statements. If mainstream society did not stigmatize and reject trans people, this person might have avoided being pulled into the gang.

Whether Blast was simply forced by the gang to “clean up” the scene and shoulder the blame (the defense version) or was a key active participant (the prosecution version) is something I just do not know. The SLRP might have an opinion; I don’t. The statement did not call for anybody’s release anyway.

As far as I am aware the rape accusation also failed to stand because there is no evidence Blast was ever attracted to females. However, this in itself does not mean anything else. A gang is a gang and Blast might well have committed the murder even if someone else did the rape. As I said I can not judge this case, I don’t have the full evidence.

I could care less about race- race is ignored by the biological sciences. It doesn’t really exist as a metric to be measured (some socio-biologist have attempted to identify race in some animal species- but, it doesn’t really pan out very well). I know nothing of “Blast”- have not researched the case being debated. Mine is a biological argument.

You are the only one that referenced race. I referenced emotional blackmail- a social (‘society’ being based in biology) disorder. Why did you automatically see a racial component to my remarks?

What does which side of an ocean have to do with any of this?

I am detecting a strong sense of a/some political ideology in your remark, Ram.

Are you trying to play Captain Obvious? We all have political ideologies here. I use the term “individual freedom” which is very strongly loaded (and in fact pro-capitalist). Your ideology is a form of collectivism. Different from the radical feminist form or the Communist form but for me, they all have an unsavoury smell.

The present urban conflicts in the USA have a large racial component, “race” being purely a social construct. And you have landed the Blast case in this context – all by yourself. Here in Ireland, the matter of deprived areas has nothing to do with any “race” but is still a problem, too.

I clearly laid out my rationale for supporting western civilization a few times, I wont repeat it here.

My ‘ideology’ is based in biology. That it coincides with western values, which are based in an ideology and Judeo-Christianity, is not my problem- nor is it my axe to grind. I just see/observe/know what works for humans. So, your Captain Obvious reference is inapplicable in this case.

Because a corrupt US media made the social unrest about race doesn’t make it so. Don’t believe everything you read about here from way over there (or even from here!). Oh sure, there are racial arsonists, who have been co-opted by your run of the mill anarchists, setting their worlds ablaze, but, the problem is mostly manufactured by big anarchist interests. Just as our racial minorities being used by these international professional and rabid anarchist, so are our LBGTQ community being similarly used.

Don’t try to tell me what my ideology is- you could not begin to imagine it and I have not revealed anything more than I am not a supporter of socialism, communism, Islamism or any other system that enslaves Man (by religionists or statists). I support those governments of/by/for the people that permit and promote Mans freedom. Many ideologies fit under that umbrella, but Collectivism isn’t one of them.

You seem to believe in some metaphysical “Man” – not the individual I am talking about, but some kind of natural society with allegedly natural structures.

You somehow link it to biology in a way I absolutely fail to fathom because human biology has not changed since the Stone Age. Its “natural social structures” actually do include rape (to radfem delight) because at that time rape was a legitimate form of procreation, especially rape of members of a conquered tribe.

Excuse me, but you’re not making much sense with the “biology” stuff. It’s a simple fact that humanity’s existing social structures have developed much later than its biology.

It is unfortunate that no one is really is focusing on the biological argument against SSM and some other LGBTQ and other radicalized groups demands for social reconstruction.

I suspect that is because it slam dunks the SSM/Trans argument promoting these disorders.

A mal/misinformed population forms a society’s blood-stained path to subservience. This is why education was forbidden for all slaves in most cultures throughout human history.

On the other hand, feigning ignorance of biological truths observable to any rational person, is another strategy, entirely.

If you are really interested on the biology-human society linkage, the information is out there to analyze. If you cant do that- just spend some time in/near/around nature, The truth will reveal itself, fully. It is indisputable.

I am one of the adult children of same sex families who is against same sex marriage since it will be very bad for women and children.

I learned all my tactics from watching and listening to the “parents” and the LGBT adults around me. I’m pretty good don’t ya think? I pride myself on knowing what BS LGBT people are going to say or do before they say it. So I’m not a so called “TERF” although I agree men have no right in women safe spaces. Growing up in a same sex home and the community I got an eye full of what really goes on. For the safety of women and children keeping these men away and far away is best. Call that societal rejection but when their own kids are saying it people will listen and we are a growing movement. There is no such thing as “two mothers” I like the rest of the mammals on the face of the earth had one mother. Reality is our friend sir–save the LGBT lies for strangers. We, the family, the kids are not maintaining the lies any more. And before you jump to any conclusions–I am not a Christian I have never seen the inside of a Church. Rejecting dangerous men to keep women and safe is not a bad idea.

This does make sense – you are using the tactics of the worst parts of the LGBT movement. You took your arguments from mainly-lesbian TERFs verbatim, but the distortion tactics is also used by mainstream LGBT, for example when they try to make any argument against same-sex marriage “homophobic”.

Oh, and just so you know, “sir” isn’t an insult for me. I’m not trans myself. I’m an individualist liberal, drawn to the debate mainly because I grew up under the Reds and recognized the dreaded socialist collectivism in TERFs, right up to a Leninist description of women as a “class” that has “objective interests” – and then a small party armed with the correct ideology is the true representative of these interests. Exactly what the Bolsheviks did with the workers.

Its their own tactics snapped back and used against them. LGBT are not original thinkers and very conformist. They expect people against same sex marriage to be a certain type and make certain arguments. They have no clue what to do when someone raised by them and not a Christian comes at them for all their human rights violations against women and children. That they are liars and frauds should not come as any great surprise. Why did conservatives loose? Because they did not know or understand the manipulative distortion tactics. The did not realize how very abusive LGBT is. Lenin had no issue with gays– legal until Stalin.

The rad feminists are correct about Trans. They are dangerous disordered men with a high rate of violence against women and children.

3 women a day in the United States are killed by men. World wide about 20 a day. It is probably higher but many places do not record women’s violent deaths.

Yes women create babies and families with men. Women need to choose very carefully and not expose themselves to sick distorted men. A woman does not need to expose herself and her children to disordered men in places that she has no escape route and has a reasonable expectation of male free safe space. Transgender women are men and the rape and kill and torture women and children at the same rate of violent men and proportionately more than men in general. You are simply too lazy to look it up because you want women to serve you–good luck with that. I frankly do not care if you accept it or not. The people that need to accept are parents and women. You can support disordered violent men for the rest of you life–it is what men do for each other–nothing new.

“Transgender women are men and the rape and kill and torture women and children at the same rate of violent men and proportionately more than men in general.”

You are a liar, Ms. There is not a shred of evidence that trans women commit crimes against women proportionately more than men in general (while they are disproportionately victims of crime). And yes I did a couple of quick searches but nothing like your statement ever shows up.

I do not “expect women to serve me”. I expect people making arguments to support them with facts. You can not because your statement is a barefaced lie.

There is ample evidence of the extreme violence that Transgender “women” commit against women, a few posted here that names names of the Transgender women that have killed and raped and tortured primarily women and children. You saying it is lie matters not a wit since it is all documented. Transgender women are men and they are a danger to women and children. They should never be allowed in women’s safe spaces or around children. People should note the denial you represent and how you are so quick to put women and children’s lives at risk in order to further your agenda–nice pathology you got going. You will forgive people if they choose to remain alive and safe and protect their kids. “Transphobia” is going to be a life saver for women and children. Women need to fear men it is our reality.

Jae—Slow down gunslinger! Your normally cool logic is heating up a bit on the mammary=woman stuff.

Before you fall into a trap about what makes a woman, we have to discuss a few natural (word chosen intentionally) well-known variants.

There is a wide spectrum of humans who are born with different sex chromosomes and/or androgen mediators/ receptors. And there is a corresponding increasing level of masculinity going roughly from: XO Turner’s to XY AIS to typical XX women to CAH XX women to XXY KKS men to typical XY men and, finally, XYY men. These natural variations also shape their levels of violent crime and other anti-social behavior in published studies (but you know my skeptical view of much so-called social science).

None of that biology involves a choice per se.

It would be unreasonable to define these people away because they are different, or tell their families it is just a “dead-end mental illness” with no help of medical intervention, or that they are just sinners in the hands of an angry god. I think we agree Jae that there is no compelling evidence published to date for the role of androgens in TS formation. But, given all these natural variants, shouldn’t we keep an open mind?

I have not defined these people away. I specifically alluded to biological norms. Those other genetic variants fall well outside the norm. Those individuals need all the medical and social help society can provide. But, what they cant do is dictate the needs (or structures) of the biological norm. The biological norm is XY and XX. That is the expression that dominates Mans evolutionary trials, and that which forms the foundation for western civilization.

I have an open mind. I also know the potential pitfalls ahead for humanity when it is purposefully derailed. I can be both humane, and accurate!

Individually, none are compelling, merely good to excellent evidence. In toto though, it would be remarkable if so many papers on both human and animal studies had gotten it wrong. Especially as no other proposed cause has any good evidence at all behind it.

The studies involving hormone exposure on Intersex humans *are* compelling. What we don’t have absolute proof of is that the identical effects in trans people are caused by the same thing. We know it’s true in experimental animals, but to attempt to deliberately cause transsexuality in human foetuses too via hormone levels in order to verify theory would be monstrously unethical.

Thanks for the clarification Jae. As long as you are judging human choices and not your touchstone nature Nature, as you know, thrives on variation. That includes producing a whole range of biological “women.”

Some of the variants I cite above do employ synthetic medico-surgical intervention, and your use of the word “Franken-woman” above (presumably just hyperbole?) is unfair IMO to them.

We can agree that “normal genetic women,” meaning average or the mean, is a more restrictive term and, based on frequency, would certainly be XX women as you state.

O’B- let me restate my position, more clearly, so there is no confusion.

I do not judge nature, I respect it, and consult it for guidance. When it produces an anomaly, there is usually an intervention that can rectify the anomaly. Nature has little tolerance for genetic anomalies, so it manages for them. I do not judge genetic mutations or any other biologically immutable traits, I judge (small “j”, analyze) the decisions fallible humans makes to manage for them. We all possess/express genetic mutations (mostly recessive) and other biological anomalies – but, its those that could determine the evolutionary path of a species that require more thought- more thought than simply bowing at the alter of politics/ideology. Humans must consider the effects of their decisions on more than just the individual affected; we must also consider potential adverse effects on our family, and therefore, our culture/society.

Advocating to change the course of western civilization to accommodate rare genetic anomalies (or hormonal imbalances), or to accommodate an individuals anomalous behavior or desires is simply a practice of poor logic. The needs of the biological norms must be met above all else. It is their genetics that will dictate the future of homo sapiens.

From a logical perspective, surgically altering or eliminating the physical structures and organs that are healthy in order to accommodate the abnormal hormonal influences affecting the brain, rather than simply correcting the hormonal imbalance, makes as much sense to me as amputating your foot to stop your headache. Since logic is clearly not dominating these decisions, it must be ideology/politics. And, from a strictly biological perspective, when politics usurps nature role in determining our species’ path, only bad things happen. When bad things happen to our species, they happen to our society (and vice versa), which will adversely affect us all- even those that have distorted the oppositions rational concerns into far more nefarious things.

I’ve yet to see one advocate of SSM or Trans issues (or any of the myriad LGBTQ agenda items) consider any of the implications of their desires on society. Every argument of theirs is based in the ‘health, happiness and liberty’ of the individual. That is their starting point, from which they attempt to strap together some argument in support of their desired outcomes. Since LGBTQ are not measurable gene pool participants/contributors, it isn’t hard to understand why the greater needs of a healthy society requires much more thought than the ‘here and now’ mentality and practices of this community.

“We all possess/express genetic mutations (mostly recessive) and other biological anomalies – but, its those that could determine the evolutionary path of a species that require more thought- more thought than simply bowing at the alter of politics/ideology. ”

Then I wonder if you advocate for limitation of treatment of genetically inherited diseases, from Down’s syndrome to haemophilia. By allowing such people to reproduce, while they would naturally be excluded from the reproduction pool, technological civilization affects biological evolution directly and tangibly.

Any trans issues and SSM itself do not affect biological evolution directly (I wrote “itself” because artificial reproduction, often socially linked to SSM but not exclusive to it, does).

Also, you seem to be reading a very narrow set of advocates as you write: “I’ve yet to see one advocate of SSM or Trans issues (or any of the myriad LGBTQ agenda items) consider any of the implications of their desires on society. Every argument of theirs is based in the ‘health, happiness and liberty’ of the individual.”

“This is a victory for humane citizenship and societal empathy, an old idea in Ireland, stretching back to our founding revolution, the centenary of which is to be commemorated next year”

“The decision reveals a country no longer willing to act the part of obedient little Ireland, but increasingly at peace with the diverse society it is, unbothered by anyone else’s images.”

This is an article with which I do not agree, not only as a No voter but because I do not share the rosy image of the 1916 rising. (Just because I moved to Ireland and got naturalized eventually, I am not obligated to sign up to cookie-cutter nationalist discourse). But it is an example of an SSM advocate considering implications on society.

In fact my own view of Trans issues is also about implications on society. It is an admittedly selfish view even though I am not trans. I want a society where a widest possible range of choices is available to the person. any person. Where one is not locked by the accident of birth, whether of ethnic origin, class, or sex. This view requires social structures that admit a wide range of chosen identities, not necessarily matching what one was born with. Moreover I see this flexibility and technological progress as interlocked – and without technological progress, “Western civilization” is not worth the paper it’s described on.

Such freedom is fragile, and under attack from multiple directions. There are, in fact, some direct dangers from some of the LGBT movement to this freedom and diversity, and at least in one case the technological link is direct. Brendan Eich, a brilliant software developer who was a key figure in development of Mozilla, was hounded off the post of CEO of Mozilla Corporation because of his views against SSM. I supported him publicly on Twitter, it’s all on the record.

But just because I don’t agree with attacks on freedom and diversity from the LGBT side, I’m not going to agree to them from the traditionalist side(s). Including attempts at biological reductionism.

Ram- a “kinder, gentler society” in no way considers the real, observable, measurable implications of these political decisions upon the biological health of our society- which is the ‘day care center’ for our species.

I may be starting to understand your perspective in that you have emerged from a totalitarian society and emigrated to a far freer culture. You are sensitive about individual freedom.

I have not been seduced by the politics of this debate. So, when I use terms such as natural law, it is not within a religious context, and ‘western civilization’ is not similarly meant as such- although, I will not gloss over obvious truths that about the origins and major contributing factors that led to the development of that primary and hugely beneficial civilization. When you consistently cite the technocratic aspects of our current society, you only reinforce the concept of western civilization providing Man with the necessary freedoms to support his flourishing. You can not honestly cite similarly flourishing societies in other parts of the world.

I fear that your political bent is coloring your reception of my position- which is based solely in biology. I cant do much to prevent you from coloring my statements with your personal experiences and beliefs. But, I can make you stick to the facts. Facts are those things that are based upon Mans shared observations, as detected by his five senses, and as analyzed by his intellectual (logical) experiences. Biology, of which philosophy, physics and chemistry is integral, is a ‘hard’ science- it is resistant to manipulation by Mans ideology- such as are sociology and psychology (the foundation for todays politics).

This is simply a case of the facts of biology misaligning with the desired socially and/or psychologically desired outcomes for an insignificant subset population of homo sapiens.

The problem is that you have failed to cite such facts backed by any research. And it is very dangerous to cite alleged facts without research based on hearsay – the facts might prove to be incorrect, as happened with your statement about absence of same-sex or trans anything in non-manufactured societies.

If you want to do “hard” science, do it properly. That means citations that ultimately lead to peer-reviewed publications (we’re not at a conference so it does not have to be direct; serious online articles and serious educational material work when they, in turn, cite research). Any statement in hard science must be backed by research materials – then the other side can double-check the research and also see if there are contradicting research materials published.

We actually agree, though I find your terminology quaint, with “the concept of western civilization providing Man with the necessary freedoms to support his flourishing”, the question is when, how, and in what way. My take on this is that we need to look at what differentiates Western civilization from other civilizations. And it won’t be static social structures – China had those too, and in some ways they were more stable and more developed. It won’t be violent expansionism – Islamic civilization had that too. I say it will be individualistic thought, evident even in medieval systems, but expanded greatly after the Reformation and Enlightenment, bringing the concept of individual freedom in focus.

In the Reformation – and yes, I am Protestant (this colours some of my statements on Ireland) – the focus was shifted from a corporal relationship of the Church to God to an individual relationship between God and Man (at that time the terminology was current), through Christ the God and Man. So, a deeply individual, personal relationship.

In the Enlightenment and the development of capitalism, the person was torn from a communal structure, sometimes violently, and thrown into a new system of relationships as an independent agent. This had great downsides for many people; many were driven to poverty and desperation, lacking “the village” behind them that their ancestors had, and getting instead the meagre, intentionally degrading support of the workhouse. But in this same development, the industrial revolution thrived.

I would posit that through that time Western civilization already left any “biologically natural” order behind and it’s a few centuries too late to bring it back there, except by a series of catastrophic events leading to near-extinction (a “post-apocalyptic” scenario). Without such disruption, the only question, really, is what we manufacture, not whether we do.

MR: The Guardian article you posted by O’Connor on SSM would not pass muster in rhetoric or Irish history with an eighth grade schoolteacher. That “we are the world” malarkey and the romantic Irish founding made my kneecaps hurt. But, in his defense, it may have been written in a celebratory stupor.

Yes indeed – semantics. I did write “I’m tempted” not “I support” because it s very easy to read this phrase in a few ways and I only agree with one. Though I do suspect it is the one Mrs. Thatcher meant.

“There is no such thing as society” means, for me, that “society” is not “a thing”. It does not have an independence existence of its own, does not have an essence. Humans exist, humans are, in this sense, “things”. Society is a set of connections that humans devise to interact with each other.

Here’s the context as spoken in 1987:

“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

I don’t agree with the political message here. It appears it would necessarily exclude the small children and the lifetime disabled from all entitlements as they are unable to meet any obligations. Also as I re-read it, I find it to be the most eloquent and scary justification for abortion I have ever seen (I’m moderately pro-life).

I do’, however, agree that one can’t really cast a problem on “society” as there is no such thing. Any entitlement system must be seen for what it really is – taking from Peter to give to Paul, or taking from Petra to give to Paula as the case may be.

This does not mean it’s always wrong to do so. One can argue that in certain cases Peter (or Petra) is better off from the taking and giving. For example, by knowing they have created a civilized society that will not allow its members to starve, or by being able to take more entrepreneurial risks knowing that in the worst case not everything will be so bad (the “safety net” theory). And that’s one of the things we have the democratic process for – to work these questions out in public debate.

And in the same vein, we should not see social structures themselves as worthy of protection – individuals are. I am against same-sex marriage, but because of certain issues regarding children, not because of the idea of marriage.

Ram- if SSM advocates were concerned about the effects of their proposal on society, their mantra would not have been “we have a right to love”. Instead, it would have been “SSM is good for society, and here’s why….”. The fact that they are responding to others concerns, finally, about the possible adverse effect on family and society is just an afterthought, expressed, rather, in the afterglow of all that “love”.

Their campaign, here and over there by you, has been one of pure selfishness (in the psych-social sense) with no regard given to the affected social structures resiliency. Their behavior is the height of selfishness, in the biological sense, also.

Either way, its all about just THEM, individually, and not US, collectively (as a society, not as an ideology!).

I find myself in the weird position of defending my opponents from the accusation of being like me. I’ve spent a lot of time debating them. So I’ll outline their view as I see it.

*I* am very cautious about “society”. They, on the other hand, are so not! Their principal theory is basically that “discrimination” is always bad for society. That there are various forms of “oppression” of groups against other groups and they see the oppression as always single-sided – men oppress women, whites oppress blacks, straight people oppress gays, cis people oppress trans, and then there’s oppression of disabled people by able-bodied people and more. (This is where they lose me completely when I refuse to overlook individual oppression, which happens in all directions, in favour of their theory of one-way systemic oppression).

These oppressions “intersect”, creating a patchwork society where oppression is a principal way of relationship and where many people are both members of oppressed and oppressor groups, and thus participating in oppression in various ways, at the same time.

They see undoing various forms of oppression as a way to create a fairer and more equal society, to free up people to relate to each other as equals instead of being caught up in relationships of oppression.

I am still completely surprised about you not noticing all this stuff.

…and yes, perhaps I overdid it with Confucianism and what we are having here is one of the classical and endless debates. You are Platonian, I am Aristotelian.

In fact I’m mildly surprised that “Randroid” was not hurled at me yet! I’m not really a Randroid, but I come from the same general philosophical tradition and this coming was shaped by a very broadly similar experience (a close brush with Communism at a young age).

Wait, what dash of Rand? This one’s a surprise. Rand had nothing but disdain for “natural social structures” and their purveyors. For Rand, the “good” Man is pretty much defined by the way he can subvert, destroy, even fleece those structures. A case in point is “Night of January 16th”, where this rebellion against society is pretty much the only redeeming quality of Bjorn Faulkner, and the author considers it enough to make him a perfect love interest (while, judging by her later comments, not a perfect man).

I did have my short time as her admirer, a while ago, still in Russia. It was enough to get more works of hers, and these works prompted me to move on as I realized the unfortunate implications of their application on actual individual freedom.

Ram- the oppositions argument is supremely illogical, so, why would you be surprised that I might be ‘blind’ to it?

I am well-aware of their irrationality, which is based in the perennial victimization of ‘other’- whoever the ‘other’ flavor of the day happens to be, but, it is incumbent upon those still operating in reality (not reductionism, not relativism, not wishful thinking) to point out (educate, correct) the error of their emotionally-based positions.

The opposition has been permitted, and encouraged in some societies, to continue to develop and promote a biological falsehood. Here it is: there is no such thing as equality in nature. And, it is impossible to achieve something that doesn’t exist in nature, anywhere, in homo sapiens social structures, from the smallest unit of the family up to the species largest social structure, its society. When you encourage a professionally aggrieved minority segment of your population ( a man-made creation- totally anthropogenic), you have already derailed your species fit society. When we have come to place in western civilization, where we have been so successful as a society, that all the idle minds and hands can do is fret over the ‘equality’ that they demand should be granted to support bad behaviors, we have crossed that bridge too far. When the most successful civilization the planet has ever seen is bent on destroying itself to indulge the culture’s biological/evolutionary ‘losers’ (not a social statement- so relax), the collapse has already begun. One only review the centuries span of the collapse of the Roman Empire for hints of what awaits us.

There will always be inequality. That is how we are born, exist, compete, thrive and die. No Man (or groups of them) is capable of leveling a playing field that nature purposefully ‘lumped’ up. The only barrier to competition in the US (and I suspect most of Europe) to these ‘oppressed’ communities is attributable to their own learned inability to succeed (with the few notable exceptions regarding handicapped persons).

I am not a ‘believer’- I have no sympathy for whiney, lazy individuals of any community, while others of all communities significantly adversely affect, reduce or lose their lives competing on the best ‘field’ Man has ever experienced- western civilization.

My response to them: experience life in a non-western culture, then get back to me.

Well, you disagree with their social theory. Fair play; I don’t agree with it either. But you previously stated that they were not talking about the impact on society at all, only about the individual. That was, I’m sorry to say, WAY off the mark. In fact their goal is often more social (“equality” in general) than individual (well-being of gay or trans people).

My view on the issues is in this case roughly in the middle. I am strongly against what can easily become “enforced equality” in a frenzied “privilege-hunt”. On the other hand, and this is possibly our big difference here, I see the role of centralized social institutions as limiting and taming human nature, not supporting it. When something is really, genunely natural it does not require support of a structure; for example, eating is natural, so you don’t have to make most adults eat, they just want to.

So yes, it is in human nature to be unequal and to seek inequality. This does not mean there is no place for structures promoting equality, contrary to this nature – just as marriage promotes monogamy, contrary to human sexual nature. As with monogamy, the question is not whether it is originally natural, but whether it ultimately benefits people, or in your frame of reference, the survival of the species.

And I see the survival of the human species as largely dependent on continuing technological advance. Basically, we stagnate, we die. Or at least most of us die.

Massive inequality has historically been a key force against technological advance. On one hand, it suppressed potential thinkers and inventors into a life of survival drudgery if they were born into lower classes. On the other hand, by making slave or poor labour available in massive quantities, it reduced demand for machinery. The Romans actually got the steam engine, but did not develop it into anything useful because of the abundance of slaves. I wonder whether we might be colonizing space for a few centuries already were Spartacus successful.

So for me there can be both too much and too little equality. There is a complicated balance to be found, which may well be specific for a place and a time.

…”But you previously stated that they were not talking about the impact on society at all, only about the individual. That was, I’m sorry to say, WAY off the mark. In fact their goal is often more social (“equality” in general) than individual (well-being of gay or trans people)”

This is simply not true. Their argument is about permitting them to participate in the same institutions, so as to be afforded the same ‘privileges’, as opposite sex couples. It is totally about accommodation of their wants, regardless of the implication to marriage, or society, overall. To this day, aside from hastily adopting the concept of perhaps (debatable) adding value to society via adoption of unwanted children, they have not been able to synthesize a logical argument for SSM. The equality argument is the lynchpin to their SCOTUS case. it was hijacked from the civil rights movement (and cases) of the 60s. Their rallying call has been about permitting them to “love’ the person of their choice-regardless of the implication of the “love” on all society. It is you that is WAY off the mark.

“And I see the survival of the human species as largely dependent on continuing technological advance. Basically, we stagnate, we die. Or at least most of us die.”

Well, not really, not so much. We’ve been around for millions of years without ‘technological’ advances. One might make the argument that some of those advances are the very things that threaten us most. We don’t need to technologically advance to avoid stagnation; we can suffer stagnation via all manner of retardation. Benefits to Man found in the arts, science (not necessarily techno), religion, all manner of nature, and the most basic, necessary biological functions provide what we need most, which is also social (as found in the family through society), and is capable of fulfilling Mans intellectual pursuits.

But, you are viewing the world from your perch once placed in a very different world than mine. I’d like to hear your world views after spending a generation in Western Europe (providing they survive that long).

Ram- you want actual citations for biological facts long accepted, since the beginning- at the time of the great philosophers?! Not happening, my friend. I will also not be providing references for the ‘sky is blue’ claims I’ve made. There is no doubt in any rational discourse, but that higher order individuals pair to form families, which are the foundation for their society. There is also no doubt but that the health of a society will affect the individuals. And, that is as far down that rabbit hole I am willing to go with you.

But, you threw out an interesting statement: ” …the facts might prove to be incorrect, as happened with your statement about absence of same-sex or trans anything in non-manufactured societies.”

If you are saying that 1. same sex monogamous, lifetime pair bonding and 2. transsexuality; both conditions practiced or produced as being entirely void of the biological drive toward the propagation of the species, occurs in the natural world, you need to provide references since both of those claims, to date, are foreign biological concepts that would necessitate empirical data.

I am ‘game’ for any eye-openers to which you may be privy. I’ve been wrong plenty of times in my life.

Meanwhile, please do not assign your political labels, such as ‘reductionist’ to me, and I will not drag down the discourse by labelling you a ‘relativist’. There is nothing reductionist about the realities of biology as expressed and observed in nature. ‘Shooting’ the messenger is a loser proposition for us all.

“I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.”

These two, and some of her discourse on reason and capitalism I can embrace.

But, I am careful, very careful, not to let my own politics infuse my reason, which is mostly (not entirely) based in the realities of the physical/material, as revealed by the hard sciences. Yet, I am also always cognizant of the fallibility and biases of all humans acting within those disciplines of science.

Understanding life, within the context of our universe, is a constant tightrope walk.

Actually, your original statement was wider in “same-sex anything”. Same-sex sexual behaviour is very widespread in nature. But lifetime monogamous unions of any kind are not. In fact, since lifetime monogamous unions do not exist among the higher primates, I do not see how they can be seen as biologically natural for humans at all, now how unrelated animals like swans having them really prove much for us one way or the other.

I see marriage as a social way to “tame” certain aspects of human nature. It is a patently, brazenly unnatural institution in certain respects, notably sexuality, resulting in persistent multiple problems. Marriage appears to exist, speaking purely materially, to make people more suitable for parenting than their natural state is.

“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.”

(There are peer-reviewed references there at the link)

So they don’t just have same-sex lifelong couples, they have surrogate motherhood to boot and, in stealing nests, a near equivalent of a baby market, the kind the isolated worst elements of the LGBT movement would want! Which, of course, would not make me support surrogate motherhood or a baby market. I still believe it is best for a child to have access to a father and a mother even if they are not living together for whatever reason. We’re not swans, white or black.

…regarding transsexuality, it is far harder to detect in animals than homosexuality, because you can’t really nail an act and say “this is a transsexual” (while homosexual action is pretty obvious).

I still found some limited evidence about pets: http://www.transsexual.org/anec1.html . Unscientific but fun – bitches, as in female dogs, raising their hind leg to urinate, and female mice trying to hump the owner’s hand despite not having the device to do it with. (The latter may have been a misinterpretation… I wonder if mice have a clitoris… and I guess this will go down as the trans debate where the clitoris of a mouse was mentioned!)

While it’s common – 1 in 50 – in some parts of the world, in most places, such as the US, much rarer,

In western societies, such people face daunting social, legal and medical challenges. Theologians prefer that they not exist, and several conservative groups (such as the Pacific Justice Institute) have tried to get the information that they *do* exist suppressed, as it contradicts “Family Values” and is hostile to Christian.belief. Which it is, I guess.

FIrst of all, I am not even sure that these accounts of hurt are real accounts. They could be made up from some Christian bible banger sites. Cautionary fictional tales.

Secondly, even if they are true, they are about a particular person, not a community of persons. In other words, every person on Earth needs to be accountable for the parenting they do. Some are good, some are not so good. Their gender identity may be a challenge to a family dynamic, but it is not to blame for the abandonment a child feels. The blame is on the person and how they handled the challenge. Selfish, narcissistic behavior can be exhibited by ANY parent regardless of gender. It happens all the time. These stories are not unique to a “transgender” experience. How many times have we seen “normal” fathers abandon their children for alcohol, another woman, to pursue their career, etc, etc. The fundamental problem is that these fathers failed to express the love and commitment to their children they desperately needed.

My daughter loves me. I love her. She knows this every day. She knows how beautiful she is. She is adored by both her parents. If there are problems we address them.

There was one time a girl at Catholic school was not allowed at our house because I am a transgendered woman. My child is 10 and is very upset that her “friend” could not play with her at our house. In her moment of desperation she said to me “Daddy, can you stop being a girl??”. I paused and reflected how my being transgendered had hurt my daughter in this situation. I took all night and came to her with this: “I love you more than anything and I truly wish these parents didn’t feel this way. I have done nothing to make them concerned about the safety of their daughter, I volunteer at school, have done Virtus training, I’m a good person….and the only reason they can object to me is that they don’t want to expose their daughter to something different. I respect that, but they really missed an opportunity to have their child grow. You see my daughter, you are going to come across all kinds of people in this world. People who on the outside may seem quite different or unsettling to you. We need to learn to accept them even though we may not agree with everything they do. I can’t promise you that I won’t be a girl, I promise you that I will love you and accept you for who you are where you are always. You arent the first child to want their parent to change something about them in order to fit in. It isn’t just about transgender issues. When you are a teen I will probably do something that makes you embarrassed. All parents embarrass their kids (laugh). It’s our job. This is life. ”

I am really sorry for the experiences that some of these girls have shared if true, but it is not the experience of all transgendered parents. I will have more challenges but I am prepared to face them with the love of God first in my mind. The expectations of society come a distance second.

Actually Kelli, I am only reading one person on this blog who relates a personal story of being sexually assaulted. It’s easy to find. Look for the ones with gratuitous child pornographic word-images. Very sad.

I agree with you that parents of all stripes abuse kids, some horribly. Anyone with six months experience around CSA survivors or the court system knows that fact. There is no credible evidence that TS people in general abuse kids at higher rates than do other XY males.

But it would be equally blind to sugar coat the TS experience for family and kids. They are losing something too often. They have an ongoing adjustment too and society, especially for a kid, is not optional. That’s not melodrama, it’s just reality. Parenthood for all of us is a life sentence of love and responsibility with no possibility of parole (or time off for good behavior).

Your children do face special burdens if you are truly an XY woman now. Not insurmountable challenges but lifelong challenges. It sounds like you two work together on that.

Not clear if you’re also a single parent now? Is there an XY male role model close by? Also not clear how old the children were when you started the process of reassignment.

I’d be interested in your take on the Caitlyn Jenner media explosion– is it helping or hurting your situation with kids and extended family on balance? Or too early to tell?

It sounds like you are very comfortable talking about your perspective, but I’d obviously understand if you’ve said enough.

Ram- same sex behavior (ritualization) is utilized in nature to prepare the individual for when the real thing (aka opposite sex) happens along to maximize its ability for success (attracting mate, copulation). When practiced outside of that context (usually in zoos or on farms), it is considered aberrant behavior- and no same sex completed sexual act is ever achieved. There is no such thing as obligate ‘homosexuality’ in nature. The black swans, a quarter of which are considered as exhibiting aberrant behavior, are successful (if you can consider this species evolutionarily successful) because of the behavior of the 3/4 of their population that abide by their species biological norms. There are plenty of aberrant behaviors to be found in nature, we don’t need to structure our societies around them.

Regarding monogamy- human monogamy evolved as a lifetime practice because that is what was determined to be necessary to optimize the fitness of humans. The fact that apes do not practice it means it isn’t necessary for their survival. Although, I might add – they aren’t doing quite well, are they? Perhaps, they are a lesson for us in when the environment in misaligned with the needs of the species, it serves to endanger the fitness of the species.

There are no species that practice obligate homosexuality or that ‘transexualize’ for selfish goals (some species have the capacity to ‘transexualize’ when opposite sex members are unavailable, to ensure the integrity of the species).

You may take that to your local Irish bank (while it still has a few bucks left in it)-

You write yourself that the black swans are successful because 3/4 of the population practice what you describe as their species biological norms.

With the humans, the number of LGBT people is, as a *high* estimate, 10%. I repeat this is a high one – a favourite of the LGBT movement; most actual estimates are lower. My view of this estimate is that people have a degree of choice and, while there is 5% or less “hardcore” LGBT, in a fully liberal environment 10% of adults might conceivably end up either in same-sex relationships (a majority of the 10%) or else go as far in gender-related treatment as to lose a chance to conceive or bear a child (a minority within a minority).

So with all this liberalism we could have 10% of the people out of the gene pool. Does not exactly sound like a biological catastrophe to me. The monasteries sucked up perhaps a similar percentage of humanity into non-reproduction in the Middle Ages and humanity survived very well. And the black swans appear to be doing fine as black swans too (they’re all losing out to humans but that is a different matter).

I just don’t see the biological problem here. Humanity MUCH bigger issues from a purely evolutionary/biological standpoint than a routine loss of a few percent of the gene pool. Medicine means that defective genes (in stuff far more potent than sexual behaviour) get promoted down the line while previously these people would not procreate. A higher lifestyle expectation means that every pair will have fewer offspring.

Ram- I seem to recall questioning the actual ‘success’ of that 3/4 of the productive black swan population, but, it isn’t critical to the point (and, perhaps it just stayed in my head!). The point being, the productive black swan population did not encourage the 1/4 unproductive swans to adversely affect the pair-bonding mechanism critical to the success of the species.

Having a LGBTQ population is not the problem- it never was. Not every human must procreate. But, for those that do, it is uncontestable that the mechanism by which success for the species is greatest is experienced within the structure of marriage. Marriage can co-exist with the LGBTQ community, but, it may not survive their participation in that institution since the very definition of marriage will need to be changed to accommodate this minority community (all of them). And, therein, lies the potential threat. Why should they be the only community permitted to change the definition of marriage? The very existence of natural (emanating from nature) marriage could be threatened. Then, what do you have?

Monks need not have reproduced to make contributions to their society- which were significant, and, overwhelmingly positive. For the record, so are the contributions to society of the LGBTQ community. What we didn’t need was monks insisting on changing the definition of marriage to accommodate their lifestyle. We also don’t need is that same demand from our LGBTQ brethren.

The oppositions argument is not founded in any losses to the gene pool. It is founded in the possible destruction of the gene pool (adversely affecting fitness) by unnatural means.

But, you are so right in one respect- we do have bigger problems. It isn’t as though I haven’t gone down that road here at ATB. While we exhaust ourselves over the ‘unicorn’ that is the LGBTQ ‘marriage’ and TS debate issue, real threats to us all, but, especially the LGBTQ community, knocks at our door from across an ocean or continent, or two.

I’m an opponent of same-sex marriage myself, though for different reasons.

As for burkahs… I think we – and that’s a very broad “we” here – can only win by a combination of a few things. Technological progress – to keep them at bay while their readiness to die is, and will remain, greater than ours. Social attractiveness – to win “hearts and minds”. And – not giving in. I don’t mean things like questionable bans on hijabs, I mean a refusal to dilute the freedom of Western society, backed, when necessary, by appropriate use of force.

Unfortunately many LGBT activists also embrace “multiculturalism” which, in its far advanced forms, is quite harmful to their own cause. But you know what happens when one calls them out? They just say there’s no difference of principle between the “patriarchal and oppressive” religious/traditional societies.

What utter rubbish. The modern, post-sexual-revolution, definition of marriage is the same today as it was before. Two citizens voluntarily form a family unit. And it’s an established fact that forming a familial unit is beneficial to society at large. Beneficial because when people work together they can create better support systems for themselves and those around them.
My partner and I together, as a couple, had the time and means to care for his mother when she had dementia. My heteroexual married with children brother-in-law could not. My divorcee business owning heterosexual sister-in-law also could not. Our union saved the state and society a fortune in public health care costs.
Our union also made it possible for our nephews and nieces to attend university without student loans. Our union has, for a very long time, employed a large amount of people- and we pay taxes, hefty taxes. So don’t, for a second, think that because you practise heterosexual sex, your personal contribution to society (or your marriage) is more important than that of a gay couple.
We work, we pay, we do things, we contribute to society- oftentimes much more than the marginal bible thumpers, many of whom depend on public assistance and have more children than they can afford to educate and feed properly.

While I agree this sort of family is beneficial to society, I don’t see why it should be called marriage and get the same rights in relation to children as marriage has. I also don’t see the difference from a non-conjugal family two people might form; basically I see sexuality, when not linked to reproduction, as an entirely private matter, from which the eyes of the State should stay as far as possible.

In my ideal view there would be family unions/civil unions for two, three or four people, making them relatives, as if they were siblings. They would not be mutually exclusive with marriage.

Because there’s a pre-existing framework. I’m happy to see society scrap existing contracts and create new ones with new names that afford citizens rights according to their contributions.

Until that happens we have to work with what there is; And if my union contributes more to society than another union, we’re the ones who should be getting recognition of that from the government.
You’re absolutely correct that sexuality and gender should play no part in it. What should count is contract/business law. If x people forming a unit benefits society, that should be taken at face value- because there’s no benefit to society when undereducated people who have no means to support themselves by heteroseual means have 6 children who they can also not support.

You are very wrong when you write: “there’s no benefit to society when undereducated people who have no means to support themselves by heteroseual means have 6 children who they can also not support. ”

There is benefit to society in six new workers eventually. It is the task of “society” to provide for their education but it WILL pay off.

Marriage is a kind of unit invented for, and geared specifically towards, human reproduction. It allows the father’s resources to be concentrated for the children – comes naturally for the mother but not the father. It creates a stable environment where children have access to people of both genders as a framework for development of their own gender identity.

There are other units beneficial to society in different ways and this should definitely be recognized. but why recognize them in the exact same way, a way that was made for reproduction?

Jae the truth is monogamy and polygamy were always practiced simultaneously (they both still are practiced). So monogamy did not “evolve.” In the west the ban was a much later addition made by 11th century German Rabbi Geshom only for Ashkenazic Jews. It is technically still permitted to Sephardic Jews. I suspect it will make a comeback.

In the west monogamy has been practiced more extensively but in many other places it is maybe 50/50. I do not know if polygamy has been studied for child rearing. At lest it does not deny a child a mother or a father and force them to live in some lie. Same sex marriage for children I am betting is a whole lot worse than polygamy–that’s my honest opinion just knowing the distortions the LGBT movement forces on children.

African nations aren’t in great difficulty because of polygamy. They’re in difficulty because of a lack of resources, and problems regarding their distribution. That’s the same reason baby black eagles kill their siblings. And no, it’s not aberrant behaviour at all. Brood reduction is rather common in various species. Infanticide is also common in nature; Including by those cute dolphins we all love. I always find it amusing when people who seem to know very little about biology not only talk about nature, but try to make connections between that and constructs that were invented by humans. Romania has double the marriage rate that France does- yet France is developed, offers education, healthcare, security and a high standard of life for its citizens, quite different from Romania. Not to mention the rates of children at risk in Romania.

What I’ve always advocated is responsible reproduction. Not everyone is capable of rearing children and one’s sexuality is certainly not a determining factor in an individual’s capabilities. Being heterosexually married hasn’t yet been an impediment for the abuse, neglect or abandonment of children. In fact, the majority of child fatalities (76%) due to abuse happen at the hands of the parents.

Africa has more natural resources (natural wealth) than any other continent, it is their social ills that provide the foundation for their problems. Polygamy, as I stated, is only one of the causes of their social ills (a restatement since you must have misunderstood my original statement). Corrupt governments and tribalism are their biggest problems (to which polygamy contributed). Both of those entities ‘govern’ Africans, rather than the monogamous family structure, the smallest/lowest level of human ‘government’. As more African nations ‘westernize’, they become more stable (note the current ‘religious’/cultural wars). Hence, my linkage of monogamous natural marriage to stable and free (fit) societies.

Some species of animals practice many behaviors that are considered aberrant- infanticide and siblicide, however possibly beneficial to the individual actor, is still not a desired trait for selection. And, that would be a logical conclusion, wouldn’t it? If those traits became dominant in the species, what would that species risk for survival be- would it not elevate the risk? Undesirable physical and behavioral traits (usually recessive) are evolutionarily ‘managed’ so as not to become dominant- that is done via natural selection. Those traits have obviously been selected out of most of the populations of all species or else the species is at risk (killing siblings and offspring isn’t good for the species). ‘Aberrant’ applies, and it stands.

Your ‘amusement’ is of little concern to the debate. Your statement of such is nothing more than an attempt to condescend to your opposition, it is soft bullying- stop it, it isn’t necessary, nor germane to the debate. You may disagree with my statements without descending into the stereotypical ‘sarcastic bitter snipe’. Your ‘name’, if interpreted one way, could say as much about your zest for your priorities, and apparently, the means with which you will achieve them. It should be your goal in this debate to work against negative stereotypes, not reinforce them. Think of it this way, “…suppose I actually lose the SCOTUS case and the only other option LBGTQ will have is to convince the opposition, using logic and facts, that SSM is good for us all….”. That’s sort of reality check can be healthy for all of us.

Monogamy wasn’t ‘invented by humans’ and lifetime monogamy wasn’t ‘invented by humans’- it occurs throughout nature. Next time you see a Canada Goose pair, wish them a happy “marriage”. That humans, using their intellect, which is usually just ripe with logic, soon realized that marriage was the best way in which to procreate and rear offspring, is of no surprise. And, it is a good thing some did- have you seen what the non-monogamous world looks like, lately (or ever in human history)? Do you not see the clear linkage between monogamous pair-bonding and stable, healthy and free societies?

Regarding your France vs. Romania comparison inversely correlating rate of marriage with material success, you present a perfect example of a false analogy. But, you knew that when you did it, didn’t you? You like to commit ‘these’ faux pax since you also did it with your ‘Christian males committing more child abuse than males of other religions’ claim. Do you think it is respectful to consider other commenters so ignorant as to not notice your distortions?

You may not ‘like’ the biological argument against SSM, that’s ok, I can certainly sympathize with your side of the question in that regard. But, the biology is real (even if you think I am distorting it; something so easily verified I wont spend another second on it), and it needs to be addressed. The biology may not necessarily prevent a social movement that supports SSM, but, it should force all of us, including and especially those who support SSM, to consider the farer reaching social implications and plan to correct for them. But, while we all, even those with whom you disagree, consider the long-term implications of SSM on the overall host society, lets also not forget that ‘having’ and rearing children was never the goal for SSM advocates. The demand for our society to accommodate SSM was/is based upon permitting citizens to “love” whom they please, and for society to provide access to the financial benefits that are afforded to marriage as recognition of that love (‘equality’). That the issue of children was raised is the ‘monkey wrench’ with which the SSM advocates are now grappling, as an afterthought (so far, unsuccessfully).

Your last paragraph is another logical distortion. Of course child abuse occurs significantly more in heterosexual households, but, it has nothing to do with the parents heterosexuality, it is obviously because the great majority of households rearing children are heterosexual. But, the fact that abuse does occur in these households in no way predicts or affects what will happen in SS households, does it? Whatever it is that has occurred in hetero households, it hasn’t, yet, adversely affected the human population [society] to the degree that it adversely affects the species, has it? Actually, whatever it is the hetero monogamous households do, at a minimum, has resulted in the rise of western civilization and all the advances attributable to that civilization, including freedom for Man never before witnessed. That has resulted in benefits for the species. Child abuse is an aberrant behavior. Thankfully, it is rare enough to not have too negatively affected our society-although, it is clear that the dissolution of marriage has significantly contributed to the child abuse phenomena. While it is occurring, as are all other aberrant human behaviors, we do know the outcomes on society and can manage for them. We don’t know what the outcomes will be if SSM is foisted upon the current culture.

The observation that a community that self-identifies by its sexual proclivities, alone, may not be fit to rear future generations within a civilization that, to date, has been defined otherwise in multiple ways, needs to be further explored. The LBGTQ community has created a subculture that is largely at odds with the prevailing culture. Now, they expect the SSM opposition to be bullied, by the SCOTUS or any other top-down means, including hijacking the cultural language and redefining opposition to mean bigotry (freedom of speech is being significantly reduced), into submitting to their will without a whimper. And, all because of unvetted claims that SSM will be ‘good’ for society. If that were the case, then, why wasn’t that the basis for the plaintiffs SCOTUS case? Why aren’t all the rest of us seeing these benefits to society? If permitting SSM means having to concede other constitutional rights (speech, religion, etc.), don’t you, too, think that could adversely affect our society? From the biological perspective, if SSA individuals were proven to be the ‘fittest’ to raise offspring, we wouldn’t need to be debating this issue- we’d be there, naturally. We’re not- for the obvious reasons- right? That is a huge hurdle for SSM advocates, which is why the only recourse they can ever take is to attack the science (hoping we’re all blind and deaf to the realities of so-very-observable nature) or attack the messenger (you’ve actually managed to do both). Neither works, though- hence the SCOTUS case.

The questions remain; what kind of civilization will emanate if natural marriage is deconstructed? What kind of society will emerge if future generations are ‘born’ and raised by SS ‘parents’?

Unless you can answer these questions, definitively, don’t criticize others for asking or being concerned about outcomes.

Ram- the difference of principle between patriarchal and oppressive religious/traditional societies is the one that permitted you to feel so emboldened (freedom) as to make quite the significant and unsociable demands upon the majority culture is the one you should probably throw in with.

If I am correct, that isn’t any other society than the one found in Western Civilization.

And, it is the chronic irrationality of both their political and psycho-social arguments (for they have no biological case to be made) that makes then such a high risk when considering granting them the care of future generations.

The more educated of them might have a response to this one. They are descendants of a very specific part of Western Civilization – the revolutionaries, staring with the French bunch. Western religious society did not “allow” freedom, it resisted, freedom was won by toil and bloodshed.

They might, if they are very very smart, go on to say that in Islamic societies, it is the job of the oppressed minorities to take their own freedom by similar toil and bloodshed and it is not appropriate for “white saviours” to try and bring it on a platter.

If they did, I would catch them out on those in Afghanistan doing just that with Soviet help and the Americans working to suppress that 🙂

Humans unique biological needs requires the near lifetime bonding of biological parents the offspring, and their offspring, require to optimize success. Preservation/protection of that pairs gene pool to ensure successive generations [should] overrides any aberrant social behaviors (eg. selfishness) in nature. Man has permitted (and encouraged, in some cultures), to his peril, his ‘wants’ to usurp his biological needs. Of course, Man has this luxury, now, since the state has stepped in to ensure the survival of his genetic contribution- of late in human history, for now. But, as we all know, as the state replaces Mans roles in the family and in his governance, overall, Man loses more and more freedom.

No one forces anyone to procreate. But, when that lifelong commitment (procreation) has occurred, there needs to be a realistic appreciation and understanding of the obligations (most of which are true sacrifices) on the part of both biological parents such responsibility bears.

It’s good to have choices, but, all choices have consequences. It’s an old lament, but it’s true- there are no free rides out there (biologically).

I’m enjoying the repartee and trying to digest all the various natural and political theory posted during the past couple of days. Some parts appear based on irrational fear about the future of the human population, Western Civilization or traditional marriage.

We do not need to worry that the human population is going to suddenly decline due to insufficient procreation. On the contrary, we are flirting with resource-constrained tipping points for over-population.

There are local pockets in relative population decline, including some of the European nations and segments of the educated European-American population, but the link between those demographics and homosexuality is contrived at best.

Regarding Western Civilization, I like the idea of John Ruskin that “Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts — the book of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art.” You would be hard-pressed to deny that there are homosexual co-authors on all three manuscripts.

Western traditional marriage works. It is not going to disappear easily. Any institution that can survive the Dark Ages and the upheavals of Protestant Reformation is going to right itself from the onslaught of the social welfare state and the little pink pills.

Irrational isn’t entirely reasonable. It’s a concerted/fabricated fear. One people benefit from. How much did that end-of-times televangelist make from his last end of times prediction? Even though it didn’t happen, yet again.

Interesting point Pink regarding the intentional selling of Har Megiddo or Ragnarok, etc. I think that it is an “easy sell,” perhaps partly because it fits so nicely into our deep-seated fears about death. In that sense, every time is the end-time for some.

I’d be interested in your perspective on accepting a higher threshold of due diligence before permitting male-male couples to bring outside kids on board? Not carte blanche for the governments, just a higher bar to account for the well-established, worldwide weakness of XY males to commit child sexual assault. That hypothetical bar would apply regardless of orientation and also would include XY male-to-female TS.

Sort of like requiring females to have the NAC check but males to have some pre-set higher level of clearance during adoption. Do you think that is unfair?

Unfair? Never. The higher bar is a necessity. I’ve spent my life as more or less an ‘auberge’ for my heterosexual friends who divorce and their children. Not Entirely Fair.
Gay me cooks, gay me teaches the children how to put what they like on pizzas, gay me serves, gay partner goes around the garden pulling a cart by a rope to make children happy. And although we never wanted children, and still don’t want children- people keep having them and asking us for real-time, real-life assistance.
How’s that for clearance?

Well stated Pink! And I understand you have good experience and position to be a care-giver– it was clear from the experience with your elder. So it is no surprise that you also “win” the babysitter contest.

SSM has an opportunity, as something relatively novel, to “up-the-game” by advocating and accepting fair and better child custody and welfare laws in general. I hope that does not get shouted down in the usual top-down noise and propaganda. That also is the reason I object to made-up-statistics or stereotypes that falsely single out one or another group of XY males as “child abusers,” as well as “legal compartmentalizing” on the other side that wants to pretend there is no overlap with marriage and children.

Both approaches intentionally and unnecessarily re-frame the discussion away from the common ground of child welfare.

O’B- it isn’t insufficient procreation that is the risk, it is the dismantling of western civilization by first dismantling natural marriage- which dismantles the family unit. We’ve seen this play before- take a look at almost any social problem and you will see a breakdown of the monogamous male-female family at its root.

And, according to most reliable statistics, western civilization natural marriage is disappearing more rapidly than the global warming alarmists polar ice caps.

Historically, natural marriage has not been challenged as radically as it is today (and it isn’t just the LGBTQ community). For a species that evolved itself out of the dark days predating western civilization, it mystifies me why we would be proponents of regressing (especially as the proposal emanates from so-called ‘progressives’).

Big question, still unanswered: aside from the fiscal bennies, why would a community so adversarial to heterosexual norms, as the LGBTQ community has historically been, be such radical proponents of crashing the club that has always been defined by the very things it abhors – monogamy and reproduction?

There’s no dismantling whatsoever. That’s an outright lie. Dismantling would be the destruction of social institutions. That has not happened, and does not happen regarding same-sex unions. All same-sex unions do is create a legal framework that supports the same-sex familial unit. All the noise surrounding it is nothing but traditional, fear-based, authoritarian monotheistic propaganda.
Heterosexual marriages have not been limited, they’re not illegal, nothing at all has changed regarding the rights they afford. The fact of the matter is religious groups want control over society as a whole and oppose anything that takes that control away from them. The same scaremongering occurred in Europe between 100 and 200 years ago (depending on the country) when governments created a legal framework for civil marriage. In case you’re interested in actual history: https://justmerveilleux.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/arguing-religion-at-face-value-and-why-its-a-waste-of-time/

No, it is not an outright lie that redefining marriage dismantles the meaning of marriage, as known, understood and practiced in western civilization for millennia. You are taking a structure that was defined as one man and one woman, only, and opening it up to ‘others’. In the subject case, to ‘others’ of the same sex. As of now, it is being targeted only for that accommodation. But, why would it not be similarly opened (redefined) for the other ‘others’, such as bisexuals (do they get one of each- if not, why not?), transgendered, queer (to include the ‘others’ in your community alone), and then to all the other ‘others’, such as polygamists and the whole host of endless ‘others’? And, when that happens (why shouldn’t it?) to make sure ‘equality’ is fully realized across the whole spectrum of ‘others’, you no longer have a structure that can be defined as ‘marriage’ has been, historically, and by nature (monogamy) – do you?

Let’s think of it this way: if a gay bar is forced to cater to non-gay ‘other’ patrons (who are also wholly incentivized), and then those ‘others’ overwhelm the gay facility to the point that these gay bars are no longer gay, you have in effect, transformed that former gay bar into something ‘other’, haven’t you? It is no longer a gay facility- it is now an ‘other’ facility. Hasn’t the gay bar been dismantled once its former uniqueness (‘gayness’) has been replaced with/by all ‘others’? Thankfully, for gays, no one is forcing them to cater to ‘others’- especially ‘others’ hostile to gay institutions. I wish we could say the same for heterosexual institutions, and businesses.

That is called deconstruction, or dismantling. Sure, ‘something’ still exists of a structure, but, it isn’t the thing it was designed or meant (naturally evolved) to be- is it?

And, once you have dismantled marriage, which is the foundation of western civilization, what happens to that civilization? Is it at risk of being similarly dismantled/deconstructed?

My argument has nothing to do with religion, please keep your opinions about any religion out of it when responding to my comments; but, please do respond to the biological argument. I am totally receptive to any opposition to the biological aspects of this issue.

Thank you for the link, but, I know where to go for insights/lessons in history. I assume as much when referencing biology for you all – which is why I resist providing links – we all are capable of doing our own research.

The chart left out “no-fault divorce”, which also redefined the understanding of marriage. You think marriage in 2015 is the same institution as it was in 1815? The ONLY thing they have in common was that men and women married. That’s it. Aside from that, marriage is NOTHING like it was back then.

Your gay bar analogy is flawed. Gay bars have a limited amount of space. Marriage is not a finite resource. Regardless if you fill a gay bar with black people or straight people, the bar is still a location where gay people can feel comfortable being themselves. Nothing has changed. The correct analogy (which is also flawed) would be to claim that allowing gay bars will redefine bars that cater to straight people (which would be about 99% of bars). Obviously that isn’t true. Straight bars and gay bars can coexist. Hint. Hint.

Yours is basically an argument for tradition. Which is not a valid rationale to continue to discriminate. In 1960, 90% of the populace supported bans on interracial marriage because it was understood for a millennia that marriage was only between two people of the same race.

The idea that 2% of the population has the ability to upend the foundation of western civilization is so utterly preposterous, I actually feel embarrassed for you. The other 98% of society is going to continue to marry and divorce, regardless of what the other 2% do or don’t do. You seem to giving gay people an incredible amount of power and influence over straight people. I’m flattered. But that simply isn’t the case. If it weren’t for gay-rights supportive straight allies, homosexuality would still be criminalized, and same-sex marriage wouldn’t exist.

Garbage, fallacies, manipulation and imbecility.
You’re obviously not capable of research. Anyone who confuses religious natural law with biological nature is lacking in education and knowledge.
Your argument is distilled religion. There’s nothing scientific, biological or natural about it whatsoever. Anyone who would call brood reduction ‘aberrant’ obviously spent no time AT ALL studying biology.

Interesting link Pink. As a barometer of just how much Ireland has changed since the time of your story, I would add that Pius IX was able to raise a formidable brigade of Irish soldiers who traveled to Italy and defended the papal states against Garibaldi forces. The Irish eventually lost that battle and then moved to the United States where they form the Irish brigade and had a very constructive role in ending US slavery.

On an unrelated point, who is the subject of that bronze reproduction holding a candle? It looks vaguely familiar but the photo isn’t sharp enough.

O’B- in response to your question to me about why I theorized that the LBGTQ community is suddenly interested in marriage, well, you sly old dog, you- you could have easily found the whole array of reasons right there at “Pink’s” blog- in the comments section of the link he provided.

On a related note- the anti-Catholicism (is that aka ‘bigotry’ or ‘hatred’ or ‘Cathophobia’?) is palpable at the “Pink-site”. Now, I know why “Pink” keeps introducing the religious components in his responses to everything LBGTQ. Yet, “Pink” is incapable of providing any logical responses to the biological argument- so far (I have hope, he seems pretty doggone smart, doesn’t he?).

To Pink- looking forward to your very entertaining and thorough analyses of Islamism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Paganism, Animism, Atheism, and all the other world religions within the context of successful societies and their embrace of gay ‘marriage’. Please, do link us up when you’ve finished up your homework there-

Jae: On your suggestion, I slogged through all the comments posted to Pink’s history story. But the comments do not seem to support your theory that homosexual interest in marriage is something new.

The economic and other contractual benefits of being married were already in place certainly by the 1970s.

Atheism or animus among proponents of different religious systems also has been common for a long time.

So, I may not be as sly as you give me credit for because I will need you to point specifically at the reason(s) you found in the Comments to Pink that support your assumption that homosexual people are “suddenly interested” in marriage or forming families? The financial incentives are not new.

Oh my… I promise you this isn’t scatty, I just have no clue which bronze you’re talking about. A bronze I expertised recently? One I own? My good bronzes are the Botero bust, the Maillol and the Zuniga. The Austin Wright looks like bronze but it isn’t. None of them hold candles, though 🙂
The only sculpture I have that holds a candle is an 18th century Venetian blackamoor that was a gift from my partner’s mother to me. By no means a reproduction.

It’s the photo to “And suddenly” by Pink. I incorrectly assumed “reproduction” precisely because it appears to hold a candle. Sorry.

Your Venetian blackamoor perhaps—Gondolier with long oar or pole, and not a spear as my erring visual system filled in. But I only see one in the photo. There must be a pair. Of course, a family gift trumps all in such matters!

Jae: Regarding your “big question” of why there is an increased interest in marriage among homosexual people, I’m not sure that your starting assumption is valid. We have an increased interest across all USA society in granting legal marriage licenses with corresponding privileges to homosexual people.

But I don’t conclude that necessarily means a greater fraction of homosexuals today aspire to a monogamous married relationship with children compared with homosexuals of forty years ago. In fact, heterosexual marriage rates have been steadily declining since 1970 due primarily to a host of economic, cultural and technological factors. Why wouldn’t homosexual interest also have declined during that same period owing to the same economic factors and shifting cultural attitudes about divorce and marriage?

Can you clarify the “big question” for me? Why would we assume that a lack of children among homosexuals somehow corresponds to “abhor reproduction?” Don’t we see similar attitudes among young unmarried heterosexual men, as well as some infertile heterosexual couples?

it is a form of misogyny which the food of the gods in LGBT land. It takes all kinds of forms. They are always claim to adopt the “junkie whores” baby or the “baby left in the trash can” (slut shaming women for daring to reproduce. They render them into their female monster narrative) in this tale they are all heroic and restore order to society and clean up the messed left by heterosexual (women). They tap efficiently into old sexism, the fallen women, women breeding too many babies, accidental pregnancy is animalistic because really it seem pretty clear–they hate women–heart and soul. To elevate themselves push they the middle class late 20th century “wanted baby” and try to assert “want” as a criteria of “good parents” Those that plan and want reproduction are better than those that have sex and get pregnant. In this narrative women are whore sex slobs.

They are so clueless about the reality of heterosexuals and reproduction and birth control and so enraged that the worst heterosexual sex and even rape all have life creating potential that they have to segregate women as evil forces in another wise ordered society and hold “breeding” in contempt. On some fundamental level they are trying to elevate themselves but they can’t access into the thing that every heterosexual knows on an instinctual level–sex can create life, intentionally, unintentional, wanted, unwanted and a million variations in between. They love to trash single mothers, teen mothers. To them parenthood is consumerism–they buy people. And they need to make that palpable to the culture. They have to heterosexual trash women–

IMHO- I can only receive your personal experiences and first-witness testimony as just that- I would not dare to question or contradict it.

But, let me add- since observing/studying western culture for a good while, within the context of the natural sciences, evidence seems to be mounting in support of your claims. Aside from the gay male’s own well-documented literary submittals, I don’t think it a coincidence that female body image (and womanhood, overall) has suffered a terrible blow at the hands of homosexually-driven ‘norms’ in the fashion industry and other pop culture venues-largely moderated by gay men. Up to the early 60s, when a full female body form and hyper-femininity was the standard, we were dragged, rather kicking and screaming, so far as hetero males of the era were concerned, to the biologically unsustainable “Twiggy” form (which is actually that of a young male). Then, we were forced, as a culture, to masculinize females in sports and other typically male dominated venues. Is it no wonder that rejection of marriage and children would soon follow to birth the feminist movement?

These anti-establishment subcultures (many completely anarchistic) joined forces to push a very unnatural agenda, which, to this day, mostly adversely affects our society (from a biological perspective), as well as individuals (mostly young females with terribly negative body and psych images of their biologically-dictated femininity).

My musings are purely theoretical, but, the evidence does seem to be mounting in support of your claims regarding gay males disdain for females.

Of course, on a purely biological basis- obviously, that is the truth- isn’t it? If obligate homosexuality isn’t an outright rejection of the opposite sex, I don’t know what is.

I think I have a different take and I have nothing invested in being tactful. As I see the movement they are a male rights movement they are seeped in historical relativism as a manipulation. The main thing that SSM is going to do is harm other peoples children. I for example do not believe that it will actually damage marriage–(but again I am not a Christian). Although it will damage women and motherhood and children and initially that damage will feed the entire movement and they will benefit from it. Conversely, the poor, the minorities, women and children will suffer. Over the longer haul I think the ideology is so disingenuous and born out of cynicism–contrived in the 1970’s and honed to propaganda perfection that is a fail. The culture that spawned it is so distorted that there’s no way to maintain it. And the more kids that are pressed into service the the worse it will be for the illusion and harder to maintain because many of us have no vested interest in protecting harmful lies. This is not to say that it will not do damage but it is not here to stay. As a movement It is outward looking impulses that drive the engine, no self reflection no interior landscape and no internal compass. They have a goal and a narrative serves to conceals, for now, the fact that they are spinning out of control . They have rhetoric and an answer for everything but they can’t live it. They have to demand other people hand over their own bodies their own children. That is predatory. And not the narrative of heroics they push.

Right now everyone is on their best behavior, the have teams of hired activist that threatened and silenced, bully and harass anyone that disagrees. They have produced fraudulent studies, tied up research money and gathered 20 years of dirt to blackmail people with. But they have not functioned without a lot of artificial support and they won’t because they can’t. The ideology is a cover, the accusation of phobia or bigotry is a cover and a mechanism to silence or discredit. Getting what they claim to want will be the downhill slide. And there is an inevitability in that. Any movement that claims they will be on the “right side of history” is delusional. You know their is clock in Prague one of the few things Hitler wanted preserved. He wanted it left standings so in the future it would represent what he has eliminated–delusions of laying claim to the future and power are not often held by those that are the once on the right side of much, let alone history. Ideology that has roots in nothing other than. They are also deeply segregationist. People really do know much beyond the PR. The cost of keeping the lies going and truths submerged is going to grow and they do not have the ability unless all the rest of humanity is complicit and that is not going to be the case. After SSM goes through will be the beginning of the end of the ideology. Let’s see this get exported to the sub Sahara. I’ll go out on a limb and say it is not going to fly. The rest of the world is not interested in bending over to be colonized by the white oppressive male rights movement from the west–they’ve been there and done that, and it did not work well for them.

O’B- you’ve crossed some wires. My theory was is) that the LBGTQ community is only interested in marriage for the benefits, as I stated in one (or more, by now) of my comments. I do not claim that they want families or desire to practice monogamy- just the opposite. The ‘something new’ directly relates to my proposal that this pitch is mostly about money, and just a little about something else.

It’s Ok- I cross my own wires all the time. As a matter of fact- I may have just shorted out!

O’B- my ‘big question’, first: “… still unanswered: aside from the fiscal bennies, why would a community so adversarial to heterosexual norms, as the LGBTQ community has historically been, be such radical proponents of crashing the club that has always been defined by the very things it abhors – monogamy and reproduction?”

Your 2 ‘big questions’ pertaining to mine:

1. “Why would we assume that a lack of children among homosexuals somehow corresponds to “abhor reproduction?”

I didn’t assume lack of children among homosexuals somehow corresponds to ‘abhor reproduction’. I never mentioned children- I referenced reproduction. You need not search too far or too wide to locate the vast amount of documentation submitted by the LGBTQ community regarding their views on hetero reproduction. “It’ is the ‘ill’ that provides the basis for all human and environmental ills across the globe. More logically, restricting myself to the biological response- if they were interested in embracing reproduction, they’d be ‘doing it’ the old fashioned way.

2. Don’t we see similar attitudes among young unmarried heterosexual men, as well as some infertile heterosexual couples?

Yes. But, the focus here is the LGBTQ community that is proposing to change marriage to accommodate their lifestyle- not the hetero infertile couples or single males that aren’t.

Regarding your question about my statement pertaining to the LBGTQ lobby’s increased interest in marriage. Well, where have they been all these millennia?! When, previous to ‘lately’, have they been interested in marriage? I can find no laments in any of the arts o literature, or court cases preceding the past 40 years, or so. I correlate the increased interest in marriage with the financial and other social benefits afforded marriage in western civilization. In those parts of the world where marriage is ‘harder’ or less beneficial (for which there can be other social reasons -admittedly) – I don’t believe we’re seeing these demands.

As a comparison, using those fighting for the rights of slaves or former slaves (in all cultures and all times in history)- the documentation for those battles for equality (or freedom) are vast. If gays were in hot pursuit of natural marriage (which they simultaneously claim has been changed repeatedly over time), where is that battle documented? Did they want it when, as they claim, it meant ‘ownership’ of the female? Did they want it when it meant unfettered, mandatory reproduction – with no support by society? No. They want it now. Maybe you can tell me ‘why now’ (preemptively acknowledging your assumptions may be as theoretical as mine)?

I am also prepared to be proven wrong- as they say, “I am not married” to my theories of these strictly psycho-social concepts- these are observations based in some (but, not all) levels of observed, but not infallible, reality.

Thanks for the clarification Jae. I am unfamiliar with that literature calling heterosexual people “breeders.” Reproduction and having children are synonymous for our species.

I may be able to answer your question about why homosexuals were less vocal as a group in the 1970s compared with today. There was a much stronger negative social stigma associated with homosexuality and it included, in some cases, being automatically fired from your job. I think that partly could account for less mainstream advocacy, wouldn’t you?

O’B- “Reproduction and having children are synonymous for our species”. Well, not anymore- heh? Haven’t you heard (or read)? Reproduction is only “good” when it is done, by any means, for the benefit of a LBGTQ recipient of the ‘product’- or else is should be aborted.

Welcome to our brave new world!

So, as a civil rights ‘movement’, gays weren’t willing to sacrifice for their rights (as were/ are more than a few of those silly Christians) – as did the blacks, women and so many other ‘oppressed’ minorities? All throughout history, predating Christianity (pagans dabbled- didn’t work out much- did it?)- not a peep to participate? How about in non-Christian cultures, where it is perceived that LBGTQ’s are more welcome- no ‘movement’ to jump into those marriages? Nothing, nowhere, ever? Asia, Africa, Europe – nada?

What sorts of parents will members of this community be? “Reproducing” and raising children is all about sacrifice.

Sorry, O’B- cant buy it just yet- need more convincing (I have faith in you!).

Meanwhile, seriously, your answer about ‘why marriage now’ is to be found (one of thousands if not millions of sources) at Pink’s blog.

Jae: Let me offer an alternative to your own economic-incentive theory, equally unsupported by data, as to why one may perceive a “sudden interest” or “party crashing” of marriage.

I assert homosexual people have a longstanding interest in public, legal marriage and mainstream acceptance. A minority of those LGB, as today, always were interested in forming larger families. Wanting a family is a desire, not an action. But, of course, some LGB people did act to form personally binding or secret weddings, and a few resorted to “marriage of convenience” to get a defined financial benefit. Also, as a matter of fact, many did take personal risks during the 1970’s movements.

What has changed since the 1970s is not the incentive as much as the means available– digital reproduction, email, websites, text messages, etc. Techno-science has facilitated and accelerated political advocacy, especially for smaller, dispersed groups. It permits small minority interests, for example the COGs reading this blog, to find each other, share information and, more importantly, engage or convince mainstream readers.

LGBTQ advocacy community applied new technology to organize its pre-existing base and mainstream to achieve a long-standing collective desire. In that sense only, I think Pink’s blog holds the answer to your question. Not in the financial incentive Comments you cited, but rather in the fact that such a blog exists at all. That was quite impossible forty years ago.

This new technology is disruptive at all levels. There’s a transition period, between much slower, written laws and legal processes that were once largely inaccessible to average persons (or even average lawyers) versus the disruptive new, extensive digital technologies. Systems are not yet structured or optimized for the rapid fluxes of information now possible via digital media or digital propaganda.

Our unsupported theories obviously are not mutually exclusive. Techno-science is neutral until incentives are applied. Think about how European history was affected by the fact that the Bible gained the early printing press?

O’B- By the SSM advocates own testimony, formal and otherwise (not a theory or unsupported by data), the marriage ‘equality’ argument is about gaining resources (financial, social, human), first and foremost, that have been preserved for the male-female biological family.

The technology is one tool, among many, being used to get them. Force, intimidation and manipulation are a few other ‘tools’ being used to get them.

In this recent Irish discussion the main resource they claimed to be looking after is a social acknowledgement of normalcy. An important part of their campaign was the statement of former President Mary McAleese to vote yes so that gay people, including those too young to mary, can feel “full citizenship”. http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0519/702165-same-sex-marriage-referendum/

I doubt that this sentiment was al there was to it, however, or else some debaters from that side would not be against a referendum and for a diktat solution similar to what they are trying to push through in the SCOTUS. A referendum, indeed, does give gay people a certain amount of social legitimacy, but judicial fiat does not.

I also am opposed to the methodology being undertaken in the USA to create effectively national standards for marriage. Our constitution has valid ways to implement SSM– by an amendment (enumeration), or by changing the laws and policies of individual states via legislation and/or the people (referendum). Judicial power grabs are dangerous. Of course, I also was opposed to DOMA which was a federal power expansion by two other branches.

But when it comes down to it, I may be more opposed to the reflexive dismissal and stereotyping of LGBT people. It is very hard to take that out of the equation when the debates are constantly framed by both sides as a referendum on homosexuality as opposed to a discussion of the right compromises and checks and balances to permit a small minority the opportunity to satisfy a long-standing collective desire. SSM has been talked about, and even acted on by a few, across states in the USA for at least as long as I have been cognizant of it in the 1970s.

SSM parenting is a much more complicated topic and one that, with the outstanding exception of blogs like Katy’s, has been largely neglected in our national discussions.

Ram- someone needs to explain to me how a community that is celebrated in western civilization to the degree that pop culture is positively supersaturated by it, and to the degree that the other 98% of our culture is being maligned for their sexuality by some vocal segments of this community, and that >60% of the possible electorate supports SSM, is not feeling accepted.

I do agree that they want recognition of the normalcy of their sexuality (not possible- the <2% occurrence in the overall population keeps it out of the norm). Once we change the definition of normal to make that accommodation, what's next?

Full citizenship is not determined on whether you marry. Good citizenship should mean that you are sensitive to the concerns of the dominant culture, so, you shouldn't force yourself into the party – wait to be invited.

I worry about precedents. If LBGTQ can force themselves into marriage via judicial fiat, what else is waiting in the wings for us- not only in the marriage venue, but others?

If they respected the society in which they wish to be accepted as 'normal', they could have employed normal (political) means to secure their gains. A logical argument in support of SSM would have been nice to have, from my perspective.

Hey Ram- since you are ‘over there’; what is going on with that BDS movement in Ireland- seems like you’re ground zero?

Reason for query- all that foreign money that poured in there to unabashedly buy the political class, of which ZERO opposed SSM, to promote the LBGTQ (and others, to be sure) agenda, much of which is traceable to nefarious anarchist groups, not the least of which are rabid Mideastern anti-Semites, is also playing out here in the US, to a lesser degree, so far.

BDS is *much* less prominent on the ground than SSM was. Sure they are out there but you basically have to look for them to find them.

I do sometimes find them because we cross paths at anti-NATO issues. I do support Israel’s right to exist within recognized borders, but it’s not a big issue for me compared to disastrous US meddling in the Middle East that has resulted in ISIS (which would have been suppressed by Assad and Saddam in its infancy otherwise). I’m not far from Shannon Airport, which is used for US stopovers to the Middle East, and when I attended a rally there against these stopovers there were some pro-Palestinian activists there. I didn’t actually talk to them, I was there with a Donbass slogan anyway.

I like rallies, and demonstrations, sit-in’s and all forms of peaceful civil protests (and being smart doesn’t hurt), it’s one of the surest ways to maintain a democracy.

The BDS bunch, and other radical and bigoted extremist groups, are not very versatile players in/at democracy. It is why they leap-frog around and over the democratic processes.

It is why I am concerned about precedents that pave the way for groups far more threatening to freedom than LGBTQ.

It is why I believe, with enough evidence to support my beliefs, that the LBGQT (among others) lobby is being used (and funded) by far more nefarious protagonists on the world stage.

The barbarians will always be at the gate. Whether they call themselves ISIS, Al Qaeda, Dear Leader, Gestapo, King, Chairman, Sheikh, President or Premier- we can never lull ourselves into a false sense of security about retaining our freedom.

The brew that fostered the rise of ISIS is debatable.

The cause of Middle East turmoil (never-ending since recorded history) is debatable. I seem to recall that Europe had some hand in its present day configuration. I also seem to recall that Europe had some role in 21st century military actions.

While I am not a dues-paying member of Putin’s fan club- he may have been on to something when he tried to tell us not to mess with the Islamic hornets nests. But, then, he totally lost me, again, when he invited himself into Ukraine.

These are the issues with which to ‘busy oneself’- not whether <2% of a free society is feeling 'accepted enough'-

Well here in Ireland the LGBT were forced to deal with the democratic process on marriage. This results from a referendum-based constitutional tradition. It’s not perfect but it’s there. Ireland has a few specific perks like that, what with a non-state-run and, in good places, competitive primary education system, etc.

Despite my criticism of the US, I can very much understand Ayn Rand’s position because I’m like that too. If you like a country and move into it you tend to notice the good things first, whether or not some locals and foreigners (who remain foreigners) agree. I call this “neopatriotism” and have a fair dose of that myself so I would not bedrudge her that!

Besides I liked the US too. This started to crumble in 1999 with Yugoslavia/Kosovo, where they plainly and simply intervened on the wrong side in my view. That intervention started the mess in Central Europe that encompasses Ukraine now. I’m no fan of Putin’s specific course of action but no side remained bright and clear in that story.

Ram- so, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that Putin, who has since re-donned the crucifix of his mothers’ religion (Russian Orthodox- Christian) to offset the implacable Communist indoctrination of his father (and his own vast experience as KGB), is ‘rescuing’ Ukraine, and further protecting mother Russia, from further incursion of secularist and possibly more Islamic-prone (one does seem to lead to the other, lately, doesn’t it?) Western Europe?

I agree on the US intervention in the former Yugo (Bosnia-Herzegovina) ethnic/religious conflicts/war.

LBGT is funded in no small part by Paul Singer a conservative republican with all kinds of ties and support to things liberals rightly hate. They are the industrial military machine. Singer is some very bad ju ju. BDS is tied into LBGT there was an interesting piece on the connection on the American Thinker–“BDS and Queer Studies” As you may have realized my take on LGBT is that it is a movement of elite powerful men using claims of civil rights and social justice as a means to erode more basic human rights of women and children and SSM is a Trojan Horse. I am not sure when but their reach will exceed their grasp. As a movement they are destructive, dishonest and dangerous to the weakest and most vulnerable of society.

Jae: After consideration, I must reject your nature-based arguments against SSM.

We can still agree that the SCOTUS pathway is illegitimate for legalizing SSM.

People with IQ’s above 150 also are “abnormal,” for example, and probably occur less frequently than do homosexuals. We would neither block them from marrying each other, nor require them to present a logical exposition for the societal benefits of their marriage. If states passed anti-intellectual laws next year (this happens historically from time-to-time), then we would want to have legal pathways to challenge or change those laws to protect the abnormal.

Nature thrives on diversity because it introduces beneficial, unpredictable combinations and thereby enhances overall survival of life. This seems contrary to your well-stated but incorrect theory of propagation of the mean or “normal.” But I still enjoy reading your viewpoint and I’m confident my disagreement will not diminish your enthusiasm!

But, lets not scramble up my nature-based argument. It isn’t based upon not permitting those outside the norm from participating in marriage. I never advocated such a thing. That position would eliminate the necessary diversity, to which you allude, from the gene pool. The more male-female genes, the merrier, says the good evolutionary biologist (which I neither claim or deny on my own behalf).

I advocate preserving marriage for the very thing it was meant to support/protect, which is the procreating male-female coupling, which forms the family, which is the foundation for western civilization. That doesn’t eliminate all the ‘others’ that fall within those two participant groups, only – even those who may possess genetics that might foster undesirable traits (eugenics is not my bag, either), as well as ‘superior’ traits.

My opposition to SSM, while based in the biology, terminates in the society/culture (which is driven by the biology). It is also based in the SSM advocates process for achieving their goals.

Whether we agree, from not at all, partially, to completely, doesn’t matter. That we can have a respectful dialogue while debating makes all the difference in the world in how we make decisions in a free society. All voices need to be heard, from the atheistic/secularist, to the scientific, to the religious – no voices should be silenced.

Here is a recent ‘outcome’ of the trans demands. Can’t say there aren’t going to be a whole lotta ‘told ya so’s’ out there just waiting to be launched. Now, as some commenters here at ATB have posited- try to imagine ‘this’ playing out in a girls/women’s bathroom or locker…

If I understand his interview correctly, Dr. Eric Vilain, director of the Institute of Society and Genetics at UCLA, has publically opined that Fallon Fox (an XY male-to-female TS) should be permitted to compete as a woman?!?

That opinion is so ridiculous and untenable that it merits a closer review of Dr. Vilain’s motives and/or understanding of his own field of research.

The musculo-skeletal physiology of an XY human being develops to be fundamentally different in very specific ways from that of an XX human being and there is no scientific basis to claim otherwise. To start with, it develops under the influence of much higher androgen levels and this will alter the composition and distribution of fast-twitch muscle and fascia. It also will influence the muscular-tendon junction. It also will influence the ligament and bone structures, etc. Secondly, the homeostasis of tissue androgen levels, a complex dynamic among several different molecules and receptors that is not fully understood at all target sites, can be expected to resist exogenous intervention for years. Finally, the turnover/ replacement rates for the tissues of the bone and connective tissue itself are very slow (years).

Dr. Vilain should be required to re-read the literature on short- versus long-term effects of androgen exposure. He might start with the Soviet experience of the long-term effects of using exogenous androgens to provide XX women a competitive advantage in selected sports. Then he needs to look at the burgeoning literature on sex-differences in musculo-skeletal disease and injury. Lastly, if he has time between meetings in his new promotion as director, he might learn about the developmental biology of the human hand– a beautiful structure of primary importance for unarmed, human combat.

What an embarrassment for the fine Pasteur Institute where he trained to be associated with such absurd speculation that has encouraged the resultant spectacle of violence against women!

I’m not so sure about legal recourse against Fallon Fox. Even if it is available it is not likely to be taken.

I’m neutral on the matter because I honestly don’t “get” the kind of public “martial arts” where such bodily injuries are permitted, whatever sexes are involved. If someone got into this sort of stuff they probably have pretty heavy contracts about this specific thing, because bodily harm can happen there. The moderate protection provided by the rules of traditional martial arts is absent.

A legal case would endanger the entire MMA shebang, because one really can’t base it on anyone’s sex. It would have to be on bodily harm. Therefore I suspect that the person who was hurt will be, and most likely already is, paid off. Whether this payment is legal, I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.

Frankly, with the sort of commercial structure against MMA, I think that they did this on purpose. They wanted the controversy. “All publicity is good publicity”.

Ram- I guess so long as that publicity is about a LGBTQ ‘excellence’ in an industry, and not that, in essence, the many ‘white guys who benefit from MMA (as wealthy producers and as consumers) are promoting a black males physical abuse of a black female’ (both LBGTQ, incidentally), it’ll fly, for now.

I am not sure about the sex of these participants not being an element of some legal action. I don’t think males are pitted against females, generally. And, there is some expectation that the MMA ‘authorities’ that approve matches are also responsible for considering other physical capabilities of the combatants, such as level of experience, weight and height- but, I don’t know, as a matter of fact, how these matches are made/approved.

I hope that the US NFL team owners are watching closely as they are being raked over the lawsuit coals by players claiming permanent damage from playing their sport. Of course, there is also an underlying racial component in that owners are white and players are largely black.

That these increasingly brutal blood sports are even celebrated, and increasing, in our culture is disturbing.

In my view, MMA bosses don’t just welcome the praise from LGBTQ, they equally welcome – and intentionally provoke – criticism from conservatives and radfems over Fallon Fox. Everything is good for their coffers as long as it raises the profile of MMA.

I don’t want to give it to them, so I refuse to take any position. I am pro-trans in that I support the right of Fallon Fox to take the social position of a woman in general; there is no need to preserve outdated rigidity on social positions (we’re not talking about reproduction here). But the social position of a woman in general, or of a man in general, does not include a right to beat another person to a pulp and be praised for it, except in cases of self-defense and defense of other persons against crime.

From a biological perspective, there is simply NO such thing as race. It is an invention of 19th century bigoted pseudoscientists, and it belongs in the bin of pseudoscience history, right there with phrenology etc.

“Racial” prejudice is a prejudice based on external appearance, on certain physical characteristics people have ascribed erroneously to a false concept of “race”. I have no idea whether she experienced it, when, and how.

Matters of NAACP elections and appointments are the exclusive province of NAACP alone.

Unlike sex, which has a biological basis in reproduction, race has none. It is superficial, like breed for dogs. A pedigree dog can escape into the wild and, by mixing with other dogs, its descendants will soon look like more or less like your average mongrel. That’s true for humans too.

And I am writing this as a new proud owner of a mongrel “some kinda terrier” dog.

Oh, and by the way, we are all persons of African descent. Our ancestors, according to current research, pushed the Neanderthals out of Europe. So the horrendous “displacement of natives” has already happened and we are the displacers.

Jae: You raise a valid concern about women’s public bathrooms or locker rooms. You might be right that giving any XY male access to the female communal places could lead to confusion and more access for heterosexual male perverts?

However, it actually cuts the other way against XX female to male TS people using the men’s bathrooms. Many of those TS people are logically afraid of being harmed or assaulted if discovered in a men’s bathroom.

Since everyone seems to have a common interest against a very small minority of (mostly heterosexual) perverts, this problem should be soluble. What about requiring selected establishments to have individual bathrooms where anyone can be private? Don’t they still have something like that in gas stations and fast food restaurants? Porta-poddy technology has gotten a lot better and those are relatively cheap.
Overall we’re “spoiled” with public facilities in the USA compared to much of the world. I think we can have the resources to sort out such a small problem. We’ve made it through handicap bathroom access and changing station controversies in my life– this one is potentially more dangerous but only if people fail to cooperate with each other.

Agreed – though I am in a country where these private facilites already exist in many places. They are “disabled” bathrooms. There is a big reason to make them gender neutral as a disabled person might have a helper of the other gender.

I see transsexuality as a disability so I would see this use justified. Moreover, gender neutral individual facilities are needed by people in a variety of cases, and not just trans people.

Imagine a school where two people assigned boys at birth are bullied by boys in the locker room for being effeminate. One is a trans girl, the other is just an effeminate boy (who may or may not turn out gay when he develops a sexual preference). If the school just has a trans-friendly policy, the trans girl will end up with the girls – who might in fact be similar bullies (whatever some feminists claim, women can be just as emotionally abusive as men, the difference is at high levels of physical violence); the effeminate boy will get no help. But gender-neutral individual facilities would be sure to help them both,

Ram- at what point is society no longer mandated to accommodate every ‘handicap’ so far documented for the human species?

When you include every physical and mental ‘handicap’ identified by the medical community (an ever growing list in the US), and then consider the global nature of all of our intersecting societies, are you realizing the costs to society for mandating these accommodations?

Why have we decided to make these accommodations for the LBGTQ community, only, and not for all the thousands of others across the world? If equality and ‘happiness’ are the goals (regardless of any benefits to the host society), where does it end?

O’B- Not to intend to be unsympathetic to the TS folks, but, the well-being of females and children must override those of any male since the biological male is far more capable of defending against another biological male.

When you decide/choose (not so for handicapped folks or babies) go TS- this consideration should be part of the whole equation. You can’t continue to expect the whole of society to continue to bend to your incredibly unique whims and cave to your equally-unique concerns. Actually, one might ask how choosing to go TS is, in any way, comparable to accommodating handicapped people and babies. I don’t see TS as being incapable of performing their functions as are the other two groups for which an accommodation was made that was/is also consistent with societal goals.

I am OK with a third genderless or single-user rest room for the ‘other’, providing it is installed at the will of the establishment (not a state mandate).

O’B- perhaps providing “other” facilities according to the demographics might work- for every M/F facility, 1.6% (far less if just for the TS segment of the LBGTQ community) should be available for use by ‘others’. Being an observer of the lines forming outside of ladies restroom facilities, some thought on proportionality and distribution might have helped out there.

But, let’s not fool ourselves- anyone will be able to use those facilities, so, if there are ill-intentioned actors, the TS is no safer in the ‘other’ facility than in the Male -designated facility.

I am not convinced we need to continue to bend over backwards to accommodate the vocal minority- especially in a free society, for reasons I recently posited to Ram. The US is an extremely diverse and extremely accommodating nation. Taking accommodation of such insignificant minorities to its logical conclusion- where will it end, and when it does, what will we look like? But, this is also why we have a representative government. And, that is the only process that should decide these matters.

Just an observation: Nature makes no such accommodation to it’s ‘minorities’. It’s pretty much “….here comes the train, kids, get in line, get on board, or miss the ride…”.

I have the most respect for that system since it have proven to work, for all species, including ours, since ‘forever’. It isn’t prone to corruption-except, for that which man introduces into it.

I am waiting for the ideological forces in the US to intersect, and then explode. I am especially awaiting the inevitable battle that will ensue between the ‘greenies’ and just about every other ‘oppressed social injustice’ group (insert your flavor of the month).

I’ve got my popcorn all ready to go when that load starts to hit the fan (…its is fast approaching)-

A gender-neutral facility is generally individual and safer for that very reason. It is needed by far more than just transsexuals; indeed, people who require assistance from a carer of the opposite gender are possibly a bigger group.

I would not dismiss all the minorities needing them as insignificant. Yes, nature is not accommodating to minorities, but in this particular question Western civilization has decided in principle against nature quite a while ago. From ramps for the disabled to gluten-free products in shops, Western civilization accommodates minorities.

Ram- I agree that Western civilization should accommodate minorities when there a societal benefit. I am not yet seeing the benefit of accommodating TS, per se, in this particular endeavor.

When Western civilization has digressed from those things determined to be advantageous for a species (against nature)- has it been a good thing, over time, for either the individual, species or society?

Accommodating TS in this particular endeavour has the same benefit as accommodating people with physical disabilities in it. It ensures that all members of society can participate fully in public life.

And yes, we know definite cases when Western civilizations has digressed from certain things naturally advantageous for a species and the result was good. One is widespread contraception and the resulting lower number of children in families. This enabled better education and more parental attention for the children. Another is accommodating physically weaker individuals by medicine, a comprehensive transport system, and other infrastructure; in nature these people would leave the gene pool. The result has been an increased availability of diverse human minds and skills.

Accommodation of minorities such as people with disabilities and TS is in this vein and thus within the mainstream of Western civilization.

Ram- so long as those being assisted positively contribute to society, it is then, only, good for society. Making sure handicapped can work and support their families and communities (thus supporting society, is good. Unless there is a correlation with TS-ism leading to such societal benefits, I don’t see the analogy. Benefitting oneself for the pure selfish is no benefit to society.

Your treatment of TS as ‘disabled’ is interesting – in what way are they to be treated as disabled (protected by ADA?)? And, if you maintain that position, is it also true for the LBGQ? If not, why not? And, if they are all somehow disabled, isn’t that the same as disordered- as was the original APA position? Can you identify your criteria for determining a person being disabled, please?

Reliable contraception, largely unavailable, safely, until recently (60s) in our history (a story still unfolding, medically for females), being a species or societal good is highly debatable. Separating male-female sex from producing offspring has led to many selfish ills in our society. In many societies/cultures, historically and in some, presently (Africa), large families meant greater chances of success of/for that gene pool. I see Europe, in particular, struggling with an inability to replace itself without importing others as one example of a theorized good thing going awry. I also see male-female relationships/bonding adversely affected. But, it is debatable- it is not ‘settled science” (as if there is ever such a thing!).

‘Medicine’ is utilized throughout nature, it just doesn’t come in a white coat asking you for an insurance card. Human progress is good, when it is done for the good. Some medicine of Man is not good.

Better education, resulting from fewer children, is debatable. Only since education has been state run or heavily linked to financial resources, has there been created this unnatural link. Other social ills (bias, oppression) provided barriers to education that had nothing to do with the number of children in a family. An argument can be made that home-schooled children fare better at academics than public schooled children in the US, of late.

You seem to continue to digress to the “luddite” argument in your responses to my comments. I am not an opponent of progress, so long as it is supportive of Mans evolutionary origins and path to an optimal gene pool, and society isn’t derailed, I’m all good with progress.

His name is Sparky, he’s not a pup, he’s rehomed from a friend’s family.

There does not have to be a “correlation” between TS-ism and benefits to society. just as there is none between physical disability and benefits to society. Just the fact that they are a part of the general population, not shown to be significantly worse in any way, is enough to accommodate them, in both cases. Google Lynn Conway for an example of a very obviously socially beneficial TS person. (BTW, some TERF claim that a high proportion of TS people are in STEM fields, which, if true, in my view actually does mean that there is a (weak) correlation between TS and social benefit).

I do see transsexualism, as defined in ICD-10, as a disability, as it leads to significant distress and requires extensive medical treatment. (When a transgender identity does not lead to distress it is not a medical condition and does not require medical treatment, but I do not see a need for toilet accommodation in these cases, at least not for transgenderism itself; locker room bullying at school is an issue MUCH wider than this).

The term “disorder” has to do with involvement of psychiatry specifically, while “disability” is a wider medical term. I can not judge the use of “disorder”, but I am extremely wary of “depathologization” that some trans activists push, as it can easily lead to removal of medical insurance/state medicine coverage of transition treatment. In the States, thanks to action by the Reagan administration using uber TERF Janice Raymond as ideological cover, it was until recently unavailable anyway, so I can understand how some American trans activists arrived at the position – but disagree strongly. In Europe coverage is generally in place.

The ADA excludes transsexualism specifically, I believe it is wrong but I do not have a vote in the USA.

LGBQ are not disabilities since they do not require medical attention and do not affect the way a person functions in their own body in society, except the rather narrow matter of intimate relationships. Moreover, medicalization of same-sex attraction, attempted in the past, concentrated on the attraction itself as “bad” and the entire building crumbled when basic personal privacy was recognized. If medicalization would be based on an inability to have reproductive sex, it might have gotten further (with a very different approach, this would be seen as a phobia basically). This is, as far as the West is concerned, all in the past anyway.

And as for education, before it was inked to financial resources, it was linked to parental capabilities. These are limited. 2 children can get much more parental attention than 10 children.

Ram- Re: education of children in large families- there is no link between size of family and education/learning/intelligence quotients/abilities. It was/is usually the domain of older siblings to contribute to their younger siblings education, if the parents (and all others blood relatives- aunts, uncles, etc.) abilities waned.

I am fascinated with your treatment of TS as handicapped. In the US that designation would afford these individuals, whose ability is reliant largely on self-identifying- an identification that seems to fluctuate in this population, significant resources at taxpayer costs.

Should alcoholics, recreational illicit drug users/addicts or others with claimed disabilities in the sexual gratification arena be afforded similar benefits? If LBGQs claimed to require medical treatments as a result of their inability to realize their sexuality, should they be classified as disabled and then covered under ADA in the US or the same in Europe?

TS isn’t, to my knowledge, an inability to sexually function. As we know, perfectly sound, functioning sex organs are surgically changed to largely non-functioning sex organs – its all cosmetic- isn’t it? And, when an XY male trans to a female, isn’t the former ‘He’, now ‘She’, typically participating in it’s new ‘sex’ with its former sex partners- which were XX males? So, in effect, isn’t it largely true that all these men do is go from a truely organic homosexual lifestyle to a cosmetic heterosexual lifestyle?

Admittedly, I get myself all twisted up in this briar patch. I am open to education/help on this particular topic!

A possible reason you are getting twisted up is because “transgender” is an admitted umbrella term. And “transsexual” sometimes gets mixed up with “transgender”.

And this is why I refer to the ICD-10. (I prefer the ICD since this is the active document where I live, produced y an international body; the DSM is a US document and I do not like the USA dictating anything to the rest of the world).

There is, in transsexuals specifically, a persistent strong discomfort. You could say that there is no known organic cause for the discomfort, but this is not the only handicap where no organic cause is known. A number of chronic pain syndromes, for example, also have no known organic cause and are nevertheless real medical issues.

Because of this strong discomfort, transsexualism is a clinical disability. It is true regardless of its ultimate sources, which have not been definitively determined as yet. Work on these causes is not easy, and it gets worse when some intermediate hypothesis gets picked up by non-medical authors, sensationalized, and politicized.

However, not all people covered by the transgender umbrella are transsexuals. There are a lot of people who, in various cases and with various degrees of frequency and consistency, prefer the social presentation of a gender not in line with the sex of their bodies, without actual discomfort with their bodies. Personally, I know a lot of natal females (mostly in Russia) who prefer a male identity, either among friends or in general, without any problem with their bodies. The majority of those I know are bisexual, though there are some lesbians and some, yes, heterosexual females. (Who might still prefer their husbands to address them as “he”).

This is not a disability and does not require accommodation in places like bathrooms. However, I still support non-discrimination ordinances that preclude enforcement of gender stereotypes, such as obligatory different dress codes for men and women. (Not much of a chance for that in Russia, which is generally experiencing a reactionary backlash on the issues).

Hi Rem! Thanks for the enlightening discussion. I have been reading up on your conversations with Jae and trying to take it all in. A few times I was able to read up on the exchange and then just when I thought I could sit a write a response another 5 comments would roll in. So I’ve decided to just learn and try to absorb the information, much of which is about topics with which I’m not too familiar. Thank you for sharing your mind and perspective with me and anyone else who might stop in. Looking forward to hearing more from you!

I suppose, instead of heading into the psychology and/or sociology of the TS/G matter, this is where I resume and restate my original position rooted in the the biological norms found throughout nature, including the standardization of XX/XY organisms (as trisomy doesn’t change the biological sex of the individual), and in those rare cases when the individual is born without a clear physical sexual identity, and that prior to undertaking drastic surgical intervention at the will of a very troubled and confused segment of our population, some very intensive psychotherapy should be provided for any definition of trans that wish to be surgically TS. There could actually be a case made against any medical community that promotes surgical intervention over therapy (and not therapy aimed only at supporting a predetermination that there should be surgical intervention as is the current therapy) designed to make these folks accept their bodies, as they were born and also accept their sexuality- whatever it is. Mutilating a perfectly healthy body is never the correct solution to any psycho-social problem.

And, because there is obviously going to be a full spectrum of psychological issues associated with either approach that probably transcend well beyond one’s sexuality, there should be no efforts by the state to accommodate, much less promote, TS for the purpose of permitting children to be placed in their households.

And this is where we part ways, because you are clearly putting ideology over clinical science here.

Yes, ideology. There is nothing in biology that would require an individual to keep their body intact or able to procreate, as long as a sizeable majority of a population keeps able to procreate.

And yes, clinical science. Supported by every reputable Western medical doctor who worked in the area and is not linked directly to Roman Catholic ideology.

You are right on par with those who protest against blood transfusions as these, too, do not exist in nature!

I did not mention anything about “placing children in their households”; the discussion was about accommodation in daily life. Adoption always includes a complicated vetting process, anyway. It is not an everyday thing and not a right.

Ram- nope, wrong, not on board with preventing blood transfusion or any medical therapy that enhances the human individual for the species’ intended purpose, which is to procreate, form families and form societies that are supportive of the species. If an individual wishes to sterilize him/herself, go for it. And, if an individual wishes to have 19 children within the structure of a natural marriage, go for that, too.

“Clinical science” has been very wrong in the past, the present and is a guarantee fail on many levels for the future. I don’t hang my evolutionary hat on what mankind does, I prefer to defer to nature since nature, alone, has provided the blueprint for homo sapiens success. Nature has dictated, via evolution, what we should eat (which man- guided by ‘clinicians’, has perverted into poisoned diets), where we should live (how about not in flood, fire, earthquake or hurricane zones?), how we should live, and with whom we should pair (another whole dissertation there). Mankind has not dictated these norms. Man has severely deviated from them- at great cost to the individual and to the human social structures most supportive of humans.

In fact, there is nothing in nature, or biology, that dictates that a healthy organ or any body part should be amputated. Aside from catering to the TS/G population, where else, anywhere, in modern medicine is it ethical to amputate healthy body parts? Don’t come back at me with those testing positive for genetic cancers. Being proactive to prevent a deadly disease is not the same as amputating an organ that is not at risk of disease and mortality for the individual.

If my brain, which is ‘not well’ from many perspectives, decides that I am of another species or another race- populations that do exist, currently, in our society as well as others, would you advocate for surgical intervention to accommodate those people? if not, why not?

I find it very interesting that my biological argument keeps eliciting religious-based responses. Is that because that is the only response that can possibly defend against SSM opponents or that can be formulated in support of SSM? It isn’t only you- it has been others here at ATB, as well. What gives with that- I am not making a religious argument, but, you are making a religious defense? Doesn’t anybody have a biological or natural defense of SSM?

While you did not mention anything about placing children in TS households, that is rather the crux of the whole matter – isn’t it? Once the ‘equality’ SCOTUS case is ‘won”, what legal barriers would prevent TS from ‘marrying’ and undertaking surrogacy or adoption?

We may part ways on some agreement, but, as I’ve said to others, that parting must be based in the truth and not any distortion of my position.

You have again mentioned “race” (as in “another race”). But race is a false concept, it does not exist. You can not “feel of another race”, you can want your face to be of a different colour – many women do that routinely with base cream, and honestly, I don’t care which colour you pick for your base cream. Or else you might want to enjoy and participate in culture created by other humans… wait, we all do that anyway.

(You probably guessed I have absolutely no time for the “cultural appropriation” criticism common among social justice circles. The one culture that handles “appropriation” correctly is Irish. “Everyone is Irish on St.Patrick’s Day” – with a nice result for the coffers of the Irish state).

You are quite wrong. nature has NOT dictated, via evolution, what we should eat, where we should live, how we should live, and with whom we should pair. (That last one was abused in propaganda against marriage of people of different so-called “races”, and I do hope you did not mean that, because otherwise I really have zero time for your lot, other than saying my country of origin, including my grandfather personally, handed that lot its ass in 1945).

And following the advent of cooking, another milestone in human development was the start of tilling land and growing and herding domesticated animals, as opposed to hunting and gathering.

After these two points, no, “nature” did not decide what humans eat – humans took it in their own hands, And they also proceeded to expand out of Africa, where they originally evolved, into the world, thus denying “nature” the decision where we live, and by extension, how (because the original diversity of lifestyles followed diversity of landscapes).

And then, after spreading over the world for millennia very slowly on foot and primitive flotation devices, pur ancestors developed increasingly faster travel – some went by river or sea, gradually improving the ship, while others opted for domesticating the horse and improving horsemansnip technique. When the marvel of the ancient ship became widespread and the horse-riding tribes and armies started their (comparatively) lightning-fast dashes, we (as in humanity) took from “nature” the right to decide with whom we pair, and proceeded to get mates born in places far from our homes (though to be honest, a large part of this was done in ways not ethical by modern standards – as in by kidnapping women). This gave us a further evolutionary advantage, as constant intermixing of populaces works towards genetic diversity and against the degradation that inbreeding causes.

From the very start, the human depends on the artificial. Our *sole* evolutionary advantage is our ability to transform things around us, and yes, ultimately our bodies too. TS transition is, from a certain angle, but one example of how we boldly transform things. In the “grand scheme”, it’s nothing special. It’s just what we, humanity, do, ever since Prometheus brought us fire.

With the Prometheus myth I hope you finally notice that I am pretty close to Randian aesthetic here. She really was “about” much more than just American patriotism, which I do not bedrudge her as it is natural and beneficial for an immigrant (I tend to treat Ireland the same way). The Randian way of “obeying nature” is, in my view, by capitalizing on our advantage, not by trying to replace it with the blueprints of other species – the species that are, honestly, losing the race to us.

Ram- great anthropological and historical soliloquy! Of course, much of it is highly debatable!

But, you left out a very important fact- mankind followed the laws of nature to do all the wonderful things he was designed/deigned and evolved to do.

He did not waste valuable energy resources bending to the abnormal, since that would have been a complete waste of his precious energy. Anything that man creates or enhances that is ordered to the enhancement of his species (hint: fitness) is good.

When you’re not accusing me of being a luddite incapable of appreciating advancements attributable to Mans unique will/reason/intellect, you are accusing me of infusing some religious or other ideology into my position.

For the record, in case it may have gotten lost, I don’t care if TS undergo surgical solutions to relieve their stressors . I don’t happen to believe it benefits them in the long run, but, that’s another debate. I do care who raises the next and future generation of humans, and I do care very much about the risk of undermining the very foundation of western civilization just to accommodate a very insignificant and unfit portion of the overall population, based upon decisions likely being made from both bad data, and bad ideology.

Well, yes, mankind has followed the laws of nature in transforming the world around it and is continuing to follow them when this transformation touches upon the body. Bring on the cyber implants next. TS transition is but another word in this grand long story.

You might not believe that the currently accepted treatment benefits people with transsexualism. You are free to disbelieve, this, too, is a part of natural (in a very wide sense) development of science. If you don’t like the comparison with those who deny blood transfusion because they tend to be openly religious about it, there are also the vaccination deniers, who are usually NOT referencing religion.

I did not actually mention TS in the context of raising children – because I happen to believe this is only one of the human activities that ultimately impact the future of the only race we have, the human race. And whatever about that debate, I want to make sure that diverse people, including TS people as well as gays, are as free as possible to participate in the economic activities of the public sphere. We already lost the great scientist Turing to persecution of gays, very nearly lost the brilliant engineer Lynn Conway to discrimination of TS, etc. I want to minimize these losses for humanity.

Of course – and this is where I do part ways with the LGBT movement – I also want to minimize loss of people who happen to have different opinions. I openly supported Brendan Eich when he was hounded by LGBT supporters off the position of CEO of Mozilla Corporation, as he was found to have donated to Prop 8 some years ago (in a private capacity and of private money, he was not suspected if unethical behaviour in the company).

Ram- from a purely natural-biological perspective, persecution of another sans any benefit to the ‘persecutors’ species or society’s fitness is about as abnormal (disordered) as any other aberrant (evolutionary disadvantaging) behavior and there should be zero tolerance for it based upon the biology, alone.

If Man had chosen to more closely mirror nature, all the while applying his unique intellect in support of what is natural (so you can have your techno-gadgets!), we might have avoided many social ills through the ages.

But, saying “no” for the benefit of the species (from the individual to society) is not persecution. I am not privy to many benefits afforded other groups in the US as I do not qualify based upon the selected criteria for those groups. Nature has dictated many of these criteria. Should I force my way into these groups, thereby redefining them, to make them accommodate me in response to a ‘fairness’ or equality” argument? No. Am I being persecuted? No. I have simply just not been privileged (selected) by nature to receive those particular sets of goods (traits).

Of course, we’ll have lines forming for all those other bennies provided by society to cash in on the insanity. I can imagine non-US citizens claiming that they ‘believe’ they are US citizens in order to participate in our social programs, or those not quite meeting the age requirements ‘believing’ they are the desired age in order to participate in ‘whatever’ the desire. The possibilities are endless!

Taking the actions of these immoral/unethical and/or psychologically-unstable persons to their logical conclusions isn’t pretty when society enables or promotes any agendas strictly based upon an ideologogy that is both data and reality (as observed and experienced, not as distorted) deficient, with no thought of possible adverse impacts on the overall society.

RACE. DOES. NOT. EXIST. There is no biological or other scientific basis for something called “race” whatsoever. The entire racial relations thing is a social construct based on an absolute nothing, a fiction, a fake conjured up by pseudoscientists in slave traders’ pay.

US citizenship, on the other hand, is a purely legal thing. It exists solely because of its a clear definition by the US Constitution and laws. It was, from what I gather, invented by a racist judge (that’s a funny link between the topics here) in the Dred Scott case, necessitating its redefinition in the 14th Amendment, but this is all history and now there is a clear legal body defining it.

Just how did you come up with the nonsensical idea of comparing these things? A pure fake and a legal reality? The spawn of snake oil salesmen, and the product of judges and legislators?

Anyone can, as far as I am concern, claim to be white, black, elvish, hobbitish, whatever. These are all fictional categories! I was known as a hobbit in roleplaying circles for years. This woman was known as black in racial justice circles for years. To me – broadly the same thing.

Descent is real, but not in a general sense of “African descent”, because we *all* have that. Homo sapiens has evolved in Africa and spread through the Earth from there.

“Recent African descent” might work. “Descent from enslaved people” might work. Etc. And whether she actually has any of that? I don’t know, I don’t even want to know. Because while descent is real, I don’t give a darn about it. If the NAACP has descent requirements for their offices, let the org sort things out.

Cultural upbringing and membership is… well more real than race, a “soft squishy” thing, with some base in reality. I think Melissa Harris-Perry is going on about that, and I would recommend that she study the history of Ireland and specifically the majority Gaelic culture. Some of the greatest luminaries of that culture were not born in it. There’s a saying typically translated as “more Irish than the Irish themselves”, but in the original Irish using the word “Gael”. I wonder if Douglas Hyde, a founder and leader of the Gaelic League and later the first President of Ireland, would be characterized as “trans-Gaelic” by Ms. Harris-Perry because he was of pure Anglo-Irish heritage. Except he did not need a T-word, he just went on about his business pretty successfully. Perhaps I’ll write to her just to tell her about him and others like him, so she does not have to go rediscovering something we take for granted on this island.

(Oh, and the Gaelic League, now Conradh na Gaeilge and concentrated on the language, of course does not have descent requirements. I can join without a trace of Irish blood of any sort, and for a year I did. My attempt at learning Irish there failed on being unable to learn through the medium of English, a non-native language, so I let it expire).

Ram- I am not supportive of anything that supports, promotes or encourages any human person to move away from his/her natural or organic origins. But, if an individual is insistent upon mutilating himself, tats fine, so long as our society isn’t promoting it as some sort of “good” for society.

Are you starting to see/feel the insanity of the trans debate, yet?

What difference does it make if there is a physical organic basis for the individual making the request? If they ‘believe’ it to be true- whether ‘it’ is sex, age, ethnicity or race (which has a genetic component, but, is not a barrier to procreation), or anything else (such as species?) – if it is in disagreement with your biology, it isn’t healthy for the individual, or that individuals society.

Your take on American politics is interesting, but, debatable, and irrelevant.

As an aside, because the LBGTQ-marriage debate is ALL ABOUT ideology from the proponents side of the debate, isn’t it interesting that their side of this debate also decries the practice of interracial adoption regarding placing black or native tribes children in white homes, lest they lose their cultural identity.

How long can they chew from both side of that frankfurter before they chew their own lips off both of their faces?

To start with – those decrying “interracial” adoption, unless we’re talking about forced adoption, are outright morons and nazis, whatever side of any same-sex or trans or other debate they belong to. Don’t even want to spend time on this. My elder son has a Mexican-born (both country and descent) schoolmate who was adopted by native Irish, thus “white”, parents, and her family’s validity is not exactly up for debate, especially on “racial” grounds.

There are morons in the LGBT movement. There are even nazis in there. And it’s actually, well, natural. Every human is an individual, people can have weird mixes of news, I know, I have one!

As for “moving away from natural/organic origins”, this part is a tad personal for me. I am Russian by country of birth, but by descent, I am Jewish. The family was secular, as was normal in Soviet times. And when in 1991, as a teenager welcoming the impending death of the Soviet Union, I decided that I believe there is a Creator, I consciously adopted a religion different from Judaism. I do not agree with a number of points of Judaism. I am Protestant. *I* moved away from my natural/organic origins by my own choice and I would darn well NOT want a society discouraging such moves.

Some years after that, I did what your own ancestors also did, I moved to live in another country far away. Thus, again, moving away from my natural/organic origins. You have a problem with that? When are we expecting you to move back to Europe, then, as your own natural.organic origin is here, not in the land of the Native Americans?

(I do assume in the last paragraph that you are European-American, what is usually called “white”. If you are actually Native American I’ll have to take that back and to see your version of naturalism in a different context. If you indeed are, I understand some of my previous claims might be offensive. I would have framed them differently if I was knowingly debating someone with ancestors on the receiving end of the unsavoury stuff that did, and does, accompany, technological expansion – even though I would still ultimately defent the technological expansion itself).

Ram- you can ‘move’ anywhere to, or away from, to your heart desires, so long as it is consistent with the needs of your (human) fitness, it is all cool. The more distance we put between our species and our species biology, the trickier (riskier) things become for us. Isn’t that a logical conclusion?

I think our dialogue has taken us full circle- back to immutable traits, and how they weigh into this debate vs. those things relativists wish to claim based upon ideological grounds, whether it originates in ones ideology borne of religion, or of an ideology borne of something ‘other’.

The natural/biological argument happens to transcend all other ideologically-based arguments. It has to, doesn’t it?

Well, exactly – the needs of one’s *individual* human fitness often involve actions that are contrary to some sort of alleged “natural” “blueprint” that humans would allegedly have if they followed “biology” in some sort of alleged close way.

Which really does not matter at all, because if we did follow this alleged blueprint most of us would be dead. Me? Several times over, most obviously from appendicitis at age 14.

I do strongly disagree with your statement “The more distance we put between our species and our species biology, the trickier (riskier) things become for us”, because the sole reason our species exists *and* the sole reason most of us exist as individuals is that we have put a distance between the natural lifestyle of the ANCESTORS of our species and where we are now. In loads of ways, starting with cooking on fire and making axes out of stone.

And in that big story of evolution away from nature, we always seek to increase our fitness as individuals.

Medical gender transition is simply one such way. Not the first. Not the last.

Ram- you fell back into perceiving the natural-biological argument as some sort of Luddite position.

If the technology is supportive of the nature/biology of the individual, within the context of ‘fitness’ of the species it is good; . i.e. humans evolving to using fire to cook or keep warm or medicine to cure your appendicitis (cure disease) is good for the fitness of the species.

Medical transgender transition is good for the species in the same way as other medical treatments are, more specifically comparable to other to illnesses that cause significant distress but are not an immediate threat to life (such as chronic pain).

Such treatments, whether for chronic pain or transsexualism, enable additional individuals to contribute to society meaningfully, and these contributions advance the species whether or not these particular individuals reproduce.

Ram- it may or may not be true re: transsexualism- we just don’t know if it enhances the individuals contributions to a optimally fit society. Most (maybe all?) ethical medical treatments serve to restore the individual to as close to the biological norm as possible. In this case, we are promoting the use of medicine to do the opposite.

Ram- actually, contraception can be argued for the good or the bad (in linee with fitness theory/reality), it depends on the why, how and what. Also, contraception predates medicine in that it has ben practiced by Man throughout his history- in one form or another.

Many species regulate conception according to their environmental needs. You cannot exclude/separate the species environmental needs from his biology (from the individual to the societal level).

Most of your responses seem to flow from the unsupported notion that I am being hypocritical. I have not received nor treated your position, similarly.

You can’t discuss biology with people uninterested in biology. In a natural state a woman is either pregnant or breast-feeding, and soon to become pregnant again. In developing countries it’s still not unusual for rural women to have 10 or more children.
Jae has no interest in real biology, rather a strange melange of religion and how random unsubstantiated one-liners might support his/her position.

There are moral and ethical means to regulate pregnancy- which includes regulating the behavior of the male (something a male usually doesn’t include in the vast array of options). The number of children in developing countries has as much to do with a culture that promotes large families, as anything else.

People usually uninterested in biology becomes more interested when they decide to engage in sexual behavior- don’t they?

Biology matters to us all. There is no religious affiliation with biology- it is just one of those inconvenient truths not so easily distorted by ideologues- hence, their feigned ‘disinterest”.

I wonder what the ‘natural state’ is for those enslaved women ‘surrogates’ in Asia?

Meanwhile, back at the fact farm- still awaiting any examples of SS’M’ in nature-

In one comment after the other you’ve mixed up biology with sociology.
You do it yet again when you mention surrogates in Asia. All mothers who give up children they can’t care for are in essence surrogates- and irresponsible ones at that.
Your ignorance is still in not being capable of differentiating incidence and causality. A mistake which is present throughout all your comments.

Human sociology is based in biology. The biology of males vs. females forms the family (the most basic level of any cohesive social structure), which forms communities, which forms populations, which forms societies.

See that straight-line link between the family (male-female) and society?

What humans use to determine if they are following the right straight line is to check their behavior against the norms found in nature, hence the words “natural” vs. “unnatural” and “normal” vs. “abnormal”, and then observe if their adaptations are good for their social units via determination of the fitness of their offspring, their society and their species.

If you don’t develop your ethics or morals against the backdrop of the natural world (and its laws), from where do you get your evolutionarily elevated status above the wild things – Man? If so, which one?

“Mothers” in Asia are enslaved. Your statement about “all mothers……..surrogates….irresponsible….” presents a possibly (you may need to clarify yourself out of that incredible insult) perfect example of your distaste for women, and mothers, in particular.

“Ignorance’ is a word you might wish to avoid using on this particular topic. Because your ’emotions’ tell you that you should have a ‘thing’ – a ‘thing’ you are not entitled to and a ‘thing’ you cannot produce normally and naturally within the LBGTQ relationship , and the acquisition of a ‘thing’ you seem incapable of logically justifying- doesn’t make it so.

Wait, why would you bring “someone else’s kiddies” into a post that is about two men buying a property and planning to become landlords?

It’s just a business, what’s wrong with it? The only link to “someone else’s kiddies” there would be availability of family apartments and ensuring a healthy atmosphere in the building at it gets renovated.

Ram- the link I make is with this commenters support for SSM, and the acquisition of children for those unions.

The wealthy LBGTQ ‘collectors’ mentality, which in and of itself is just fine, crosses the line when that ‘collection’ is expanded to include children. It goes to IMHOs claims, based upon personal experience, about the extreme consumerism mentality of a significant subset of this insignificant segment of our population.

Glad to see you back- sorry about Irelands loss of those college kids out in Cali.

So you have a problem with people who make money? And what’s a trust-funder? I’ve supported myself since I was 21 years old. I’ve also supported family members and friends. I’ve also paid for nieces and nephews to go to university- and then helped them buy their first cars and then homes. Is that part of my evil plan to destroy families? Or is your real problem you haven’t been able to make that sort of contribution to the people around you?

Thank you. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t have and don’t want to have children; Which is why it’s particularly annoying when people make this false association. Now I’m apparently evil because I buy property.

People did not make a false association. Cases involving children were cherry picked to set precedent. I applaud you not wanting children. But many of the fellows, otherwise total failures in life, will want devolve into a ersatz life of aping middle class America with someone else’s 2.2 kids. And that is a real problem because distorted people distort other peoples lives. And yes they will most certainly use marriage to get kids. And whether you do or not isn’t relevant because it is being done.

Not really. The vast majority of children of lgbt individuals are biological children. And in an America of 318 million, that’s only 96,000 households. The percentage of married gay couple adopting together is probably less people than went to your high-school.
And by the way, if I decided to adopt, I’m pretty sure that it would be to offer an underprivileged child a better life than living in an orphanage in the third world- and Katy would probably support that idea. How’s that for size?

Sorry- I know you’re ‘married’, and while I can respect your bond and your relationship with and dedication to your partner/loved one- it doesn’t make it marriage anymore than my love for my parents, siblings, children or friends can be called marriage.

There is only one definition of marriage. Nature defined it and only nature can redefine it.

I am betting you are tad old to be seen in public with little ones. People might mistake you for their grandfather. My high school was very small, so I would not bet on it. I would say an orphanage would be better. Gay men having been trending toward surrogacy. The bulk of biological children in LGBT (remember I am one of them–no pissing in my ear and calling it rain) are lesbians’ kids. That adoption plan is mighty white of you. I am sure the 3rd world would be eternally grateful. You do know that most of the 3rd world has made it illegal for singles to adopt and for same sex couples–seems like they actually care about children.

Really? You evidently come from a completely different background than me. I’m 37, where I come from people don’t become grandparents at this age.

Brazil alone, where single parent and gay adoptions are permitted has 3 to 4 million street children. 800,000 of whom are forced into prostitution. The average survival rate on the street is 3 to 4 years. Nearly 40% of those children will die before the age of 18.
An orphanage is best? Seriously? Comments like that just go to show exactly the sort of person you are. Your hate is so flagrant it supersedes any sense of kindness or compassion.

“Actually, it’s the law that defines marriage. It’s also the law that define divorce. That’s what separation of church and state is all about.”

“I keep trying to get out, and they just keep pulling me back in”- Godfather 2.

Yeah, so, so many errors in this logic, such little time.

Marriage existed before the US or its laws. It existed before the existence of all of our current governments. Marriage has been hijacked by governments, and it is currently being redefined to mean anything other than marriage, buy governments catering to themselves.

Marriage predates all current, major religions. Religions incorporated marriage into their doctrines for various reasons, but, only a few redefined marriage- such as Islam.

Marriage is borne out of the natural, biologically-driven practice of monogamy, for a breeding season or forever (species dependent), between opposite sex individuals, only.

People create laws in democratic societies. That’s not what just happened with the SCOTUS decision. There, a few flawed, uninformed and culturally biased humans short-circuited the democratic process (“three branches, what three branches?”) to create a law. That is called authoritarianism. It isn’t good for SSM opponents, and it isn’t good for SSM proponents because if the democratic process can be short-circuited to appease LBGTQ, it can also be short-circuited to hurt LBGTQ.

No Fault Divorce is a debacle for most all involved, but, especially the children. it shouldn’t be cited as a societal ‘good’.

Separation of church and state have nothing to do with anything-yet.

Are you predicting trouble for the “church” as a result of this flawed decision, and process?

No- actually legal marriage existed in the Roman empire before christianity existed at all. It was Christianity that hijacked marriage. Pick up a history book instead of spewing ignorance. And by the way, legal divorce also existed in the Roman empire before Christianity was ‘invented’.

She’s talking about much older times, times where we do not have clear proof what existed first – marriage or religion. Did primitive humans have shamans first, or monogamous marriage first?

But I do not think that there *ever* existed a human society where same-sex and opposite-sex relationships were viewed as the same kind of relationship – I’m open to correction, of course. There were a lot of societies quite open to same-sex conjugal relationships, but they were viewed as something different from marriage – ant not necessarily incompatible with it. On a conceptual level, this is one of the problems I have with same-sex marriage – that it takes two different things and makes them the same. (The other is the children debate, notably cases like Miller v Jenkins – where I support Miller – however that very case happened without SSM).

I have no problem with your mutually and socially beneficial relationship with your partner. I just don’t see how it is the same thing as what was usually called marriage. Your own descriptions, I think, tend to emphasize the differences.

Nor do we need clear proof. We also don’t have clear evidence of the effects of the internet and yet here we are typing at each other.
Society has to, in certain cases including the law, simplify things. A marriage contract gives x rights and y obligations. Simple as that.
There’s nothing in the marriage contract that applies differently to a gay couple.

And on top of that I’m quite certain no lgbt people were objecting to having civil unions a decade or two ago. You know who was objecting to civil unions? Religious groups. The fact of the matter is religious groups object to homosexuality in and of itself and all these micro-battles have simply been a way of forwarding that animus.
If you scroll up the comments you’ll see people saying an orphanage is a better option than a gay home.

But the most interesting example is really the comments concerning me as an individual. If a Christian buys a property that’s great, it’s god’s will and kindness. If a gay person does it, then it’s because we’re greedy people who want ‘to buy’ children? What the hell is that? It’s what it looks like. The premise is lgbt people are bad, and so anything coming from lgbt people is negative.

Yeah, I do think this gets mixed up unduly. If you bought a property to make into apartments to rent out, I see you as a landlord and I can ask about landlord things (my own experience with landlords was sometimes good and sometimes not). Who you live with, love, or sleep with has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

However, what I’d say about marriage is – it is historically viewed as something particular. Not just one contract among many, not just one choice among many, but a special choice favoured by the law as the one optimal environment to raise children.

The USSC has now decided that the state has no right to elevate this choice among other choices, because “The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause […] extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

In this case the logical move would be to abolish state recognition of marriage altogether and offer civil unions for all. If I were a US state legislator I would propose just that.

I’m fine with that. Many lgbt people have been fine with that for decades.
What looks problematic is it reads as simply a desire to undermine gay relationships. Eliminate contract A and create contract B which contains exactly the same clauses. An exercise in futility- which would probably come at tremendous expense to the tax-payer.

I didn’t even mention Christianity; are you letting your bigotry, phobia and hatred of Christians get in the way of your reason?

Reread my comment, or have someone else without a bias (or learning disability) read it to you (if any such being exists in your social circle). I maintain that marriage predates all other human social constructs since it is borne directly out of nature’s monogamous pair bonding.

You’d make such a fine ‘daddy’, such a shame you’re so….’unavailable’ to the gene pool.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer I see. CharitIES are tax exempt (in some countries and circumstances), charity may get a tax credit (not charitable projects like mine.) I’m bankrolling it. You don’t even seem to know the difference between a tax exemption and a tax credit- which I suppose means you’ve never had to deal with either.
Good luck on your self-charity-project.